# All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]



## FormerHorseGuard (7 Jan 2021)

I just saw the post on social media about the army plan about giving the vaccine to the troops.

can a soldier refuse the vaccine?  Or refuse any other medical treatment or vaccine?

I ask here because it is not news worthy and I did not want to take away from more important questions.

I always followed the advice of the medical staff while in uniform.  Advice=Order?


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> can a soldier refuse the vaccine?


QUOTE

Like other vaccines provided to CAF members, the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandatory; this remains a voluntary option for all. Whether or not a vaccine will be made a requirement for an operation or a position is a decision to be made by operational commanders, in consultation with their medical advisors. However, CAF members may require proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to operate in certain high-risk environments or with vulnerable populations.








						Surgeon General CAF Vaccine Rollout Message
					

Based on the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) guidelines and my medical advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), our Chief has directed the Vaccine Prioritization Framework.




					www.canada.ca
				




END QUOTE


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (7 Jan 2021)

thanks for the answer,  

yes you can refuse,  but operations  might over rule it.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> thanks for the answer,


You are welcome.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jan 2021)

mariomike said:


> QUOTE
> 
> Like other vaccines provided to CAF members, the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandatory; this remains a voluntary option for all. Whether or not a vaccine will be made a requirement for an operation or a position is a decision to be made by operational commanders, in consultation with their medical advisors. However, CAF members may require proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to operate in certain high-risk environments or with vulnerable populations.
> 
> ...


To put it in armyese; career going fine, career going fine... career stops! Insufficient immunizations!  😁


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Jan 2021)

Keep in mind that even if a particular OP does not require the vaccine, some countries that people may travel to (for third location LTA) may require it for entrance (similar to yellow fever).  Last time I was in Afghanistan, the uptake for the flu shot was very good as people were headed out for LTA to countries that had made it an entrance requirement.


----------



## cmdj1982 (2 Aug 2021)

We've all been told since BM(O)Q that we are allowed to disobey unethical/unlawful orders. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction for which Regs/Orders the guidelines for doing so fall under?

QR&O?
DAOD?

Just wanting to better understand what qualifies as such, what actions I can take, and what protections are offered to a person who challenges their superior in such a way.

Thanks for any/all help


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2021)

As per QR&O 19.015 and 19.02

"19.015 - LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS​Every officer and non-commissioned member shall obey lawful commands and orders of a superior officer.

NOTES​(A) The expression "superior officer" includes a non-commissioned member. (_See article 1.02 - Definitions_.)
(B) Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.
(C) An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. *In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.*
(D) With respect to riots, subsection 32(2) of the _Criminal Code_ (_Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46_) states:


> "32. (2) Every one who is bound by military law to obey the command of his superior officer is justified in obeying any command given by his superior officer for the suppression of a riot unless the order is manifestly unlawful."


*(C)*
19.02 - CONFLICTING LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS​(1) If an officer or non-commissioned member receives a lawful command or order that he considers to be in conflict with a previous lawful command or order received by him, he shall orally point out the conflict to the superior officer who gave the later command or order.
(2) If the superior officer still directs the officer or non-commissioned member to obey the later command or order, he shall do so.


----------



## FJAG (2 Aug 2021)

Just to take what Haggis said a step further, note that there is nothing here about "ethical" orders just "lawful" or "unlawful" orders. Note as well the justification to refuse the "unlawful order" only occurs when the order is "manifestly unlawful". There is no legislation respecting "ethical" or "unethical" orders.

It's possible that an "unethical" order may also be a " manifestly unlawful" order but that's a question of fact in the circumstances. 

"Manifestly unlawful" has been defined by the Canadian Supreme Court in _Finta_ as being:



> As Justice Cory explained in _Finta_, “manifestly unlawful” is an order that “offends the conscience of every reasonable, right thinking person; it must be an order which is obviously and flagrantly wrong. The order cannot be in a grey area or be merely questionable; rather it must patently and obviously be wrong.” The determination of “manifestly unlawful” is as stated in subsection (5) a question of law.



🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Aug 2021)

Just a point of philosophy: every individual is morally entitled to refuse an order on grounds of personal conscience.  Having said that, every individual that does so needs to be aware that there will be consequences.  The best of the objectors accept the consequences.

Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali is a personal hero.  There are a lot like him.

On the other hand I have little time for people who plead their conscience but expect to be excused consequences.


----------



## Kilted (2 Aug 2021)

When was the last time that someone was charged for giving an unlawful order.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2021)

Likely somewhere in the court martials of L'Abbe, Seward, Boland, Matchee, Brocklebank and Brown.

Unfortunately, the Chief Military Judge web sites (DWAN and public facing) do not include many older court martials; you can see some of the follow-on work at the Court Martial Appeal Court.






						Court Martial Appeal Court
					






					decisions.cmac-cacm.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Just a point of philosophy: every individual is morally entitled to refuse an order on grounds of personal conscience.  Having said that, every individual that does so needs to be aware that there will be consequences.  The best of the objectors accept the consequences.
> 
> Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali is a personal hero.  There are a lot like him.
> 
> On the other hand I have little time for people who plead their conscience but expect to be excused consequences.


My Grandfather was a Consciousness Objector in WWI, instead of a gun he became a stretcher bearer to help his friends. that took guts.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Likely somewhere in the court martials of L'Abbe, Seward, Boland, Matchee, Brocklebank and Brown.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Chief Military Judge web sites (DWAN and public facing) do not include many older court martials; you can see some of the follow-on work at the Court Martial Appeal Court.
> 
> ...


I don't recall Labbé being charged with anything, but his subordinate, LCol Mathieu, was charged with Negligent Performance of  a Military Duty for stepping outside the ROE by ordering his troops to shoot fleeing looters.  He was acquitted during two courts martial.


----------



## FJAG (3 Aug 2021)

Seward negligent performance of military duty as well. Convicted. 3 months imprisonment. Dismissed from CAF.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson (3 Aug 2021)

Seward was sentenced, by a jury of his peers (old court martial rules had the panel determine guilt and set sentence) to a severe reprimand.  Civilian judges, in appeal, jailed him and tossed him from the military.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Aug 2021)

Why do I have the feeling this has to do with vaccination?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Aug 2021)

Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.


----------



## brihard (3 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.


And CAF isn't ordering COVID vaccinations anyway.

It would be helpful if the OP could give us an example of precisely what sort of order they have concerns about.


----------



## Haggis (3 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Refusing vaccination is another, distinct charge under the NDA.


NDA 126/QR&O 103.58 is an interesting section. The "Notes" state _*(*_*emphasis is mine*):

"(A) *No authority exists whereby a person can be forced actually to undergo inoculation,* etc., although he can be ordered to submit himself to such a procedure. Failure of a person to submit to inoculation. etc., in spite of an order requiring him to do so, would constitute an offence on his part. “Reasonable excuse” is a defence to a charge under section 126 of the _National Defence Act_. *(5 June 2008)*

(B) *Persons who refuse to submit to inoculation, etc., who are able to prove sincere conviction on the ground of religious belief or other scruple should not be charged under section 126 of the National Defence Act. *The main purpose of the section is to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces will not evade important service by refusing to submit to inoculation, etc., when failure to be inoculated would mean that they could not be sent on duty to a particular area.

(C) The word “wilfully” in section 126 of the _National Defence Act_ signifies that the alleged offender knew what he was doing, intended to do what he did and was not acting under compulsion.

The story of  Sgt (ret'd Mike Kipling shows another side of this as he refused the anthrax vaccine believing this specific vaccine was unsafe.  The Judge agreed with him and his charges were stayed.  Interestingly, he was already deployed into an SDA when he was ordered to submit to the vaccination.


----------



## FJAG (3 Aug 2021)

Haggis said:


> ... The story of  Sgt (ret'd Mike Kipling shows another side of this as he refused the anthrax vaccine believing this specific vaccine was unsafe.  The Judge agreed with him and his charges were stayed.  Interestingly, he was already deployed into an SDA when he was ordered to submit to the vaccination.


The prosecution took the order for a stay to appeal and the CMAC overturned the stay and ordered a new trial. The prosecution decided against retrying Kipling.

2002 CMAC 1 (CanLII) | R. v. Kipling | CanLII

🍻


----------



## Zoomie (4 Aug 2021)

I imagine we will just add the vaccine to the current list of required vaccinations for service in Canada.   I don’t get a sign off on my APRV unless i have the correct set of needles in my arm.   No APRV, no duty.  Malingerers (sp?) won’t have an issue using this as a way to get out of their jobs.   My trade would be motivated as it would enable us to continue doing what we love to do.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Aug 2021)

While it's unlikely that the CF will mandate vaccination, it is already a requirement that one meets the standard for deployment. If someone were to refuse vaccination, and therefore become undeployable, that someone might be making an equivalent decision to become unemployable. Specifically because the undeployability relates to an issue over which they have personal control.


----------



## cmdj1982 (14 Aug 2021)

Thanks for all the replies all.

You've all guessed anyway, yes this is in relation to mandatory jabs.

I don't want them YET because:


No long-term observations on health yet
No ability to sue the vax makers if you suffer adverse effects
While approved by Health Canada, no FDA Approval on any vax's yet, just approval for emergency use

I'm not anti-vax. My family and kids have their shots. But there are already horror stories (although rare), and governments around the world are pushing this so hard, so fast. Something doesn't feel right and I simply want to bide my time and see the effects and be provided protection (pay protection, particularly) if I do happen to have an adverse effect and can't work anymore. I have 7 kids to feed and support. If I have a bad reaction and am f*k'd, so is my family if I can't sue anyone to compensate.

The madnatory vax for federal employees is disheartening, TBH...



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-government-mandatory-vaccinations-1.6140131


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Aug 2021)

cmdj1982 said:


> I'm not anti-vax. My family and kids have their shots. But there are already horror stories (although rare), and governments around the world are pushing this so hard, so fast. Something doesn't feel right and I simply want to bide my time and see the effects and be provided protection (pay protection, particularly) if I do happen to have an adverse effect and can't work anymore. *I have 7 kids to feed and support. If I have a bad reaction and am f*k'd, so is my family if I can't sue anyone to compensate.*
> 
> The madnatory vax for federal employees is disheartening, TBH...
> 
> ...



I don't know anyone who can't work because they were vaccinated. If you die because you aren't vaccinated it won't be very good for them either, and it's the unvaccinated (of all ages) who are being culled right now by the Delta variant.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2021)

As I said in a previous post... you are 10000 times more likely to have a serious outcome from catching the disease than by being immunized.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Aug 2021)

cmdj1982 said:


> Thanks for all the replies all.
> 
> You've all guessed anyway, yes this is in relation to mandatory jabs.
> 
> ...


It is kind of moot point now, isn’t it?
I expect that there will be a CANFORGEN this week on the subject and it will be a lawful order to get vaccinated.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is kind of moot point now, isn’t it?
> I expect that there will be a CANFORGEN this week on the subject and it will be a lawful order to get vaccinated.



Just like mepacrine?

Not just stirring the pot.  I have had my two jabs.  But cmdj1982 has a valid point.  All the more valid in that the virus continues to mutate, like all viruses, while the consequences of both getting the vaccines (mixed or not) and not getting the vaccines are variable.  

The member should be able to take comfort from being absolved of the consequences of following a lawful order, with the full weight of the chain of command and the institution supporting him/her in the event of negative consequences.  Exactly the way the CAR was supported.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is kind of moot point now, isn’t it?
> I expect that there will be a CANFORGEN this week on the subject and it will be a lawful order to get vaccinated.


I don't think it's that easy, this isn't an order to show up for Base Duty O shift or to sweep a floor. One person will take this as their hill to die on, and it will end up in Federal court.

We just saw our entire military justice system upended because of Vance's CFOO placing military judges under the VCDS, if you don't think NDA 126 will get challenged then that's pretty naive thinking. Maybe this time we'll get an actual judgement (unlink Kipling which kinda disappeared), potentially from the Supreme Court.

DS Hat on: Slightly changed the title of the thread, as I think this is a really important discussion to have in light of the Government announcement.


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I don't think it's that easy, this isn't an order to show up for Base Duty O shift or to sweep a floor. One person will take this as their hill to die on, and it will end up in Federal court.
> 
> We just saw our entire military justice system upended because of Vance's CFOO placing military judges under the VCDS, if you don't think NDA 126 will get challenged then that's pretty naive thinking. Maybe this time we'll get an actual judgement (unlink Kipling which kinda disappeared), potentially from the Supreme Court.


This would be a good time to do it. There's nothing like a real public health threat and demonstrable evidence to get a court to make a real-life practical decision rather than some airy-fairy mumble about unlegislated "individua" rights trumping public safety and security.

🍻


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> This would be a good time to do it. There's nothing like a real public health threat and demonstrable evidence to get a court to make a real-life practical decision rather than some airy-fairy mumble about unlegislated "individua" rights trumping public safety and security.
> 
> 🍻


I don't think the demonstrable evidence is going to go the direction you think it is, and discovery from the "refusing vaccine" person is going to pull a lot of data out of the Government.


CAF population is between 18-60 years of age, only the 50+ folks have statistically significant rate of hospitalization from COVID19.
COVID19 vaccines reduce risk of infection, but don't actually stop it. They just reduce severity but that's already statistically low for our populations. This calculus changes for a expeditionary deployment where there's reduced R2 or R3 resources so makes much more sense to make it a DAG requirement
If a fully vaccinated person contracts COVID19 (symptomatic or asymptomatic), studies are showing they have the same viral load (can spread it) just as much as an unvaccinated person. So the public safety/security nexus is a weak argument.
There's only less than 15% of the CAF who haven't been vaccinated (May numbers). If 85% isn't herd immunity, then we'll never achieve it so there's no point to mandate vaccines because there won't be a reasonable statistical change in infection rates.
Federal Govenrment lawyers (I know you're a fan) will also have to explain why if the COVID-19 vaccines are so important that even with 85%+ of the CAF vaccinated there was/is barely any reduction in PHMs.

I say all this as someone who was vaccinated as a Pri 3 a scant few weeks after all our CFHS folks got theirs.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Aug 2021)

The military judges' petulant "we can't be charged" was rightfully tossed by competent jurors at CMAC.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> This would be a good time to do it. There's nothing like a real public health threat and demonstrable evidence to get a court to make a real-life practical decision rather than some airy-fairy mumble about unlegislated "individua" rights trumping public safety and security.
> 
> 🍻


You are talking about expediency vs principle, surely?



> *Hard cases make bad law* is an adage or legal maxim. The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I don't think the demonstrable evidence is going to go the direction you think it is, and discovery from the "refusing vaccine" person is going to pull a lot of data out of the Government.
> 
> 
> CAF population is between 18-60 years of age, only the 50+ folks have statistically significant rate of hospitalization from COVID19.


Being over 50+ that makes me feel that our more significant risk isn't worthy of public health care protection. I disagree.


PuckChaser said:


> COVID19 vaccines reduce risk of infection, but don't actually stop it. They just reduce severity but that's already statistically low for our populations. This calculus changes for a expeditionary deployment where there's reduced R2 or R3 resources so makes much more sense to make it a DAG requirement


That may be the case but reduced severity is important not only to the individual but to reduce the likelihood of further spreading and mutation.


PuckChaser said:


> If a fully vaccinated person contracts COVID19 (symptomatic or asymptomatic), studies are showing they have the same viral load (can spread it) just as much as an unvaccinated person. So the public safety/security nexus is a weak argument.


Actually my understanding is that a vaccinated persons viral load is lower. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...-transmission-vaccinated-cases.pdf?sc_lang=en


PuckChaser said:


> There's only less than 15% of the CAF who haven't been vaccinated (May numbers). If 85% isn't herd immunity, then we'll never achieve it so there's no point to mandate vaccines because there won't be a reasonable statistical change in infection rates.


I know this sounds like the same old trope but you do not eradicate viruses/disease through herd immunity. Smallpox and polio were eradicated by massive vaccination programs. Many others massively reduced in harming children. The 1918 Flu still circulates over 100 years later because too few people are vaccinated against it and it keeps mutating in the general population and creates between 9 to 48 million illnesses, 140 to 810,000 hospitalizations, and 12 to 61,000 deaths annually.


PuckChaser said:


> Federal Govenrment lawyers (I know you're a fan) will also have to explain why if the COVID-19 vaccines are so important that even with 85%+ of the CAF vaccinated there was/is barely any reduction in PHMs.


I'm not a fan of government lawyers. I was one part-time and full-time for a few years but that's quite different from being a fan. It's not up to lawyers to explain; its up to them to present the evidence of expert immunologists and others.


PuckChaser said:


> I say all this as someone who was vaccinated as a Pri 3 a scant few weeks after all our CFHS folks got theirs.


Got mine too but as an older-folk priority. It was no inconvenience, did not threaten my rights as a citizen, and made me feel better for having lessened the chances of a health risk to myself, my family and my neighbours. 

I genuinely cannot understand the anti-vax hype that seems to run rampant through some of the elements of our society. Maybe that's because I was a member of the school-age children of the 1950s who was routinely lined up in school for some "needle" and as a result watched many childhood diseases that had threatened me and my peers disappear. 

Honestly, I simply can't understand the mentality of folks who scream "you're violating my legal rights" at the drop of a hat. Maybe its because they have never been threatened by the diseases we were back then and watched disappear. Or maybe its just an inflated sense of themselves. 

🍻



dapaterson said:


> The military judges' petulant "we can't be charged" was rightfully tossed by competent jurors jurists at CMAC.


FTFY

😉


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> You are talking about expediency vs principle, surely?
> 
> View attachment 66039


I'm actually talking "principle" in that there comes a time when society's safety and rights in general trumps an individual's fanciful ideas that a minor imposition is a legally protected, sanctified right. I fully believe that this is the role of the judiciary. To test opposing concepts and rule on them rather than leave them to continue to divide society.

Notwithstanding old legal tropes, all legal decisions are, and should be, based on legal principles and hard evidence and not by personal beliefs and evidence garnered from an influencer's Facebook page. 

😉


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2021)

Well, Typhoid Mary had rights although the courts ruled against her.

On the other hand Jenny Geddes was highly effective asserting her rights regardless of the courts.

Daft and  Barmy can give you a fair account of how many people like Jenny, protestant, catholic or Hindu, are necessary to upset the courts.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Well, Typhoid Mary had rights although the courts ruled against her.
> 
> On the other hand J*enny Geddes was highly effective* asserting her rights regardless of the courts.
> 
> Daft and  Barmy can give you a fair account of how many people like Jenny, protestant, catholic or Hindu, are necessary to upset the courts.



She was effective at stool CQB, certainly  









						Jenny Geddes - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## CBH99 (16 Aug 2021)

cmdj1982 said:


> Thanks for all the replies all.
> 
> You've all guessed anyway, yes this is in relation to mandatory jabs.
> 
> ...


Your points aren’t invalid.  And as you stated, you aren’t anti-vax, but playing it safe as you have a pretty large family to support.  

Pro’s and cons to either direction on this.  I can understand where your thought process is coming from.  


One thing most of us do is we neglect how valuable of an investment good insurance can be.  Most people aren’t anywhere near as well educated about insurance products as they think they are.

Sit down with an insurance broker to review what you have, and what you need.  That way IF you somehow become unable to work due to an adverse reaction, you may be able to get insurance for that & be covered.  

Better than being screwed and unable to support the family.  Maybe that would help put your mind at ease, and get vaccinated when the proper time comes for you.  


^ just random thoughts


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Aug 2021)

> Maybe its because they have never been threatened by the diseases we were back then and watched disappear.



I guess this is a root cause of a lot of contemporary dysfunction.  Fewer people every year have much of a clue that they are, by historical standards, extraordinarily safe and privileged.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (17 Aug 2021)

Oh man, I just don't know. I'm burnt out from all this.

Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease

Specifically the parts about consent and "THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID‐19 VACCINES IS NON‐THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING"

Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) and Vaccines | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia


> "ADE occurs when the antibodies generated during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but they are unable to prevent infection. Instead, these antibodies act as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the pathogen to get into cells and exacerbate the immune response."



There is no short term evidence of ADE, but if it happens longer term... the consequences are beyond horrifying.

The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness - Salk Institute for Biological Studies


> "In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls."


https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

Just having the protein spikes in your system may damage you. Am I sure I want to take a vaccine that causes my body to produce these proteins?

Secondary:

"Playing vaccine roulette: Why the current strategy of staking everything on Covid-19 vaccines is a high-stakes wager"

Nuremberg Code - Wikipedia

Hahaha, I'm sure I'll regret this post later when it comes out the vaccines are the next best thing to swiss cheese and 100% fine.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> I'm actually talking "principle" in that there comes a time when society's safety and rights in general trumps an individual's fanciful ideas that a minor imposition is a legally protected, sanctified right. I fully believe that this is the role of the judiciary. To test opposing concepts and rule on them rather than leave them to continue to divide society.
> 
> Notwithstanding old legal tropes, all legal decisions are, and should be, based on legal principles and hard evidence and not by personal beliefs and evidence garnered from an influencer's Facebook page.
> 
> 😉



Actually I would argue that isn't the case. Individual rights need to be upheld to the utmost extremes, as anything else leads to dictatorships, massacre's, and repression. The Residential Schools were in 'societies best interest' when they created them and look how that turned out. I used to be for the whole 'public good' until I realized how so many people abuse it for their own interests. China argues the genocide of the Uighurs is in the good of their society. Frances committee on public safety executed tens of thousands.

You are talking about more than a minor imposition, you are advocating for individuals to be assaulted and a foreign substance injected into them without their consent. You may believe it is in everyone's best interest, and realistically it likely is (I am not anti-vax, I have had one of my two shots with the second booked), but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose it upon others due to your fears. The scariest part about this is as a society with all the information provided and a significant uptake on the vaccine (at least 85%) we still feel the need to forcibly provide it to people who have determined that they would rather not have it and accept the risks involved in the activity. 

It is even enshrined in the Charter and the 1867 Constitution of this country. Right to life, liberty, and security of the person and not to be deprived of such unless in the interest of fundamental justice. It is their body and therefore should be their choice. These were also provisions written by people who lived in and through the pre-1950s medicine society where people actually died from many diseases. Not only that it was written by people who had Private Health Care and the the expectation that they take care of themselves. 

A societies rights are most protected when a individuals rights are protected.


----------



## brihard (17 Aug 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Actually I would argue that isn't the case. Individual rights need to be upheld to the utmost extremes, as anything else leads to dictatorships, massacre's, and repression. The Residential Schools were in 'societies best interest' when they created them and look how that turned out. I used to be for the whole 'public good' until I realized how so many people abuse it for their own interests. China argues the genocide of the Uighurs is in the good of their society. Frances committee on public safety executed tens of thousands.
> 
> You are talking about more than a minor imposition, you are advocating for individuals to be assaulted and a foreign substance injected into them without their consent. You may believe it is in everyone's best interest, and realistically it likely is (I am not anti-vax, I have had one of my two shots with the second booked), but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose it upon others due to your fears. The scariest part about this is as a society with all the information provided and a significant uptake on the vaccine (at least 85%) we still feel the need to forcibly provide it to people who have determined that they would rather not have it and accept the risks involved in the activity.
> 
> ...



Who is talking about people being assaulted? I’ve seen nobody advocating for forcible, physically coerced vaccination. Careful there.


----------



## Kilted (17 Aug 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> It is even enshrined in the Charter and the 1867 Constitution of this country. Right to life, liberty, and security of the person and not to be deprived of such unless in the interest of fundamental justice. It is their body and therefore should be their choice.



Nothing that the notwithstanding clause can't overcome.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2021)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) and Vaccines | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
> 
> 
> There is no short term evidence of ADE, but if it happens longer term... the consequences are beyond horrifying.
> ...


Have you had a common cold?  Did you get over it?

If it came from a Rhinovirus C variant, your body is already rife with spike protein antibodies.

Hopefully your body wasn’t too damaged by them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2021)

cmdj1982 said:


> if I do happen to have an adverse effect and can't work anymore. I have 7 kids to feed and support. If I have a bad reaction and am f*k'd, so is my family if I can't sue anyone to compensate.


I'd imagine you have quite the life insurance policy in place for the dangers that come with deploying overseas?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Oh man, I just don't know. I'm burnt out from all this.
> 
> Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
> 
> ...



We're still here....

The reason humanity has been so successful from the evolution stand point is because, in addition to random chance or God's Will, individuals have made their own decisions to Freeze, Fight or Flee.  At least one third of them have made the "right" decision - regardless of the rationale.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

A couple of more bits of data for the discussion









						Common Cold - Infections - Merck Manuals Consumer Version
					

Common Cold - Learn about the causes, symptoms, diagnosis & treatment from the Merck Manuals - Medical Consumer Version.




					www.merckmanuals.com
				






> *Common colds* are among the most common illnesses. Many different viruses (rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, *coronaviruses*, and human metapneumoviruses) cause colds, but *rhinoviruses (of which there are more than 100 subtypes) cause most cold*s. Colds caused by rhinoviruses occur more commonly in the spring and fall. *Other viruses cause common coldlike illnesses* at other times of the year.





> Colds spread mainly when people’s hands come in contact with nasal secretions from an infected person. These secretions contain cold viruses. When people then touch their mouth, nose, or eyes, the viruses gain entry to the body and cause a cold. Less often, colds are spread when people breathe air containing droplets that were coughed or sneezed out by an infected person. A cold is most contagious during the first 1 or 2 days after symptoms develop.



In my personal opinion, regardless of the effects of the SARS Coronavirus 2, there is little reason to expect it to develop any differently than its already endemic cousins.  A cure for the common cold is probably just as likely.

Also



> Antibody levels are one piece of the puzzle when it comes to fighting Covid, but they don’t tell the whole story when it comes to immunity.





> There’s more to the immune system than antibodies​The recent NYU study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, focuses on antibody measurements (in a lab setting), but that’s just one of many aspects of the immune system that contribute to protection against Covid, according to Shane Crotty, professor at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology who studies how the immune system remembers infections and vaccines.
> 
> “Your immune system is complicated, and doesn’t just have one weapon,” Crotty says. “You’ve got neutralizing antibodies, other kinds of antibodies, you’ve got memory B cells and T cells.”











						Covid immunity is about more than antibodies — here's what else helps protect you
					

Antibody levels are just one factor that determines how protected you are against Covid and its variants. Here are the other elements that work together once you're vaccinated.




					www.cnbc.com
				




Consider the system of systems and a mutually supporting layered defense in depth.  The vaccines are particular weapons.  And are effective contributors to the defense.  But they are not the only defense.

I have added the Moderna MRNA vaccine to my arsenal with two shots.  My wife has added the Pfizer MRNA and the Astra Zeneca, or Oxford vaccines to her arsenal with a shot of each.



As the man said:  You pays your money and you take your chances.

Good Luck! Deus Vult! Insh'Allah!


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

cmdj1982 said:


> Thanks for all the replies all.
> 
> You've all guessed anyway, yes this is in relation to mandatory jabs.
> 
> I don't want them YET because:



In my view you don't need to justify to us why you make a personal medical decision after weighing the pros and cons.



cmdj1982 said:


> The madnatory vax for federal employees is disheartening, TBH...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-government-mandatory-vaccinations-1.6140131



This is certainly concerning. It bothers me from a perspective of principle, forcing/coercing people and it raises a red flag to me of why suddenly in the past two weeks we've gone from 0 to 100 on the scale of pressure. There are other threads for debating the relative dangers of COVID for young healthy people versus the unknowns of novel vaccines.

To me the issue here is the historical principle in Canadian law that any patient has the right to decide what, if anything, is to be done with their body.

I think that deployment is different. You can't choose whether to charge that machine gun nest or not, you need to just do it when ordered, so I suppose vaccines and operational effectiveness would fall under that. You don't have a right to (potentially) get sick in those circumstances because that could impact the overall operational effectiveness of the unit. Assuming the vaccine is actually as safe as they claim ... if it isn't they are actually potentially hurting operational effectiveness to impost it. Only time will tell on that score.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> In my view you don't need to justify to us why you make a personal medical decision after weighing the pros and cons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Underlying all of this is the fact that the CAF is a voluntary organization.  Everybody volunteers to accept the terms of engagement. And everybody has a right to withdraw their services. Subject to the terms of the agreement.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> Nothing that the notwithstanding clause can't overcome.



In Canadian Criminal law, an assault is any application of force without the other person's consent. Stabbing someone with a needle, even if you didn't pin them down to do it, is an assault if the person did not consent to the injection.

Consent is vitiated if it is coerced or acquired under duress, fear, intimidation, or exercise of authority. This comes up fairly frequently in sexual assault law, where a woman acquiescing or even "agreeing" under duress from a boss or person of authority is a sexual assault even though he didn't actually pin her down and rip her clothes off. See, for example, R. v. Ewanchuk,  [1999] 1 SCR 330, https://canlii.ca/t/1fqpm (paragraph 36 and following discusses this)


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Underlying all of this is the fact that the CAF is a voluntary organization.  Everybody volunteers to accept the terms of engagement. And everybody has a right to withdraw their services. Subject to the terms of the agreement.



How far do we take this argument though? One could say that any form of employment is "voluntary", but do people not have the right to a job?

It would seem that they do, I don't think anyone would say that a prohibition on LGBTQ people in the CAF would be justified because it's a voluntary organization and you can withdraw your services if you don't want to give up that lifestyle?


----------



## Underway (17 Aug 2021)

You have the right to decide.  And the employer has the right to decide whether you are employed or not. 

In the military, it goes one step further.  An unvax'd person is risking my health not just their own.  One goes down as a casualty from the virus that's my problem now.  Worse you become an infection vector for the unit and their families.  The vax depending on type is not 100%.  So now because of a selfish political stance (as it's been proven again and again that anti-vax sentiment is political, not medical) an unvax'd person is risking their unit.

I'm sure the collected folks here are aware of how diseases and illness are the worst enemies for armies throughout history. I know I've been on exercise where the flu and GI have decimated those available for operations.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> How far do we take this argument though? One could say that any form of employment is "voluntary", but do people not have the right to a job?
> 
> It would seem that they do, I don't think anyone would say that a prohibition on LGBTQ people in the CAF would be justified because it's a voluntary organization and you can withdraw your services if you don't want to give up that lifestyle?



Right to a job?  No.

Other than that, agreed.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

Underway said:


> You have the right to decide.  And the employer has the right to decide whether you are employed or not.
> 
> In the military, it goes one step further.  An unvax'd person is risking my health not just their own.  One goes down as a casualty from the virus that's my problem now.  Worse you become an infection vector for the unit and their families.  The vax depending on type is not 100%.  So now because of a selfish political stance (as it's been proven again and again that anti-vax sentiment is political, not medical) an unvax'd person is risking their unit.
> 
> I'm sure the collected folks here are aware of how diseases and illness are the worst enemies for armies throughout history. I know I've been on exercise where the flu and GI have decimated those available for operations.



Your politics. My principles.

But, as with Little Black Devil, other than that , agreed.


----------



## Kilted (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> In Canadian Criminal law, an assault is any application of force without the other person's consent. Stabbing someone with a needle, even if you didn't pin them down to do it, is an assault if the person did not consent to the injection.
> 
> Consent is vitiated if it is coerced or acquired under duress, fear, intimidation, or exercise of authority. This comes up fairly frequently in sexual assault law, where a woman acquiescing or even "agreeing" under duress from a boss or person of authority is a sexual assault even though he didn't actually pin her down and rip her clothes off. See, for example, R. v. Ewanchuk,  [1999] 1 SCR 330, https://canlii.ca/t/1fqpm (paragraph 36 and following discusses this)


I was referring to the fact that the government (Federal or any of the Provinces) could make vaccinations mandatory for everyone.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> I was referring to the fact that the government (Federal or any of the Provinces) could make vaccinations mandatory for everyone.



Legally I don't think they can. It would be a very interesting legal battle if they tried.

I think I know they can't, which is why I am seeing lots of releases were the "mandatory" vaccine actually means if you don't get the jab you have to be routinely tested which in my view is very different from "get the jab or we're putting you in jail or taking away your career/livelihood".


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> In Canadian Criminal law, an assault is any application of force without the other person's consent. Stabbing someone with a needle, even if you didn't pin them down to do it, is an assault if the person did not consent to the injection.


So which Canadian federal government official should then be charged under C.C.C. 265?  PM? Health Minister?  Minister of Labour? 🤔


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> So which Canadian federal government official should then be charged under C.C.C. 265?  PM? Health Minister?  Minister of Labour? 🤔



As of right now, so actual laws have been put in place. But arguably a case could be made that they are all parties to the offence if someone wanted to go that route.

It would be really interesting to start a private prosecution where someone was injured by a vaccine (and has good medical evidence to back that up) and then gets a charge sworn for aggravated assault on all of them, assuming circumstances where they had good evidence they only accepted the jab under duress from these government orders. Of course, the prosecution would withdraw the information almost immediately in all likelihood, but it would sure send a message.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Legally I don't think they can. It would be a very interesting legal battle if they tried.
> 
> I think I know they can't, which is why I am seeing lots of releases were the "mandatory" vaccine actually means if you don't get the jab you have to be routinely tested which in my view is very different from "get the jab or we're putting you in jail or taking away your career/livelihood".


What about schools that require kids to have their shots to attend?


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Of course, the prosecution would withdraw the information almost immediately in all likelihood, but it would sure send a message.


To whom, and would they really care?  I doubt that the likes of Trudeau & Co. would give a toss what eventually made its way through the Federal Courts…not like legislation stops them from doing what they want to anyway.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> To whom, and would they really care?  I doubt that the likes of Trudeau & Co. would give a toss what eventually made its way through the Federal Courts…not like legislation stops them from doing what they want to anyway.


True it would probably scare the lower level people more ... and maybe it would be an empty gesture. Would probably be better as an argument on a lawsuit for battery.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> What about schools that require kids to have their shots to attend?


Historically the provinces that have mandated vaccines for school children (I believe only Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba do), there have always been exemptions so that would get around the argument of "force" probably. It seems that this is what they are doing now at the government level, plus allowing for testing/screening of unvaccinated individuals rather than terminating them. Which actually seems like a reasonable compromise. People who don't want the jab don't get it, and those who are scared of the unjabbed (notwithstanding their own vaccinated status) have peace of mind that the unjabbed isn't carrying any COVID-19.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Historically the provinces that have mandated vaccines for school children (I believe only Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba do), there have always been exemptions so that would get around the argument of "force" probably. It seems that this is what they are doing now at the government level, plus allowing for testing/screening of unvaccinated individuals rather than terminating them. Which actually seems like a reasonable compromise. People who don't want the jab don't get it, and those who are scared of the unjabbed (notwithstanding their own vaccinated status) have peace of mind that the unjabbed isn't carrying any COVID-19.


Isn't that going to be awfully expensive though, to have hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of kids tested on a regular basis?  School boards are always complaining about funding, I don't see how this is sustainable unless the tests are done & paid for by the families, which I'm not opposed to.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Isn't that going to be awfully expensive though, to have hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of kids tested on a regular basis?  School boards are always complaining about funding, I don't see how this is sustainable unless the tests are done & paid for by the families, which I'm not opposed to.



So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children? 

The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.

The state is, by definition, coercive.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children?
> 
> The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.
> 
> The state is, by definition, coercive.


Why stop at corrosion to pay to just the parents of school kids?  Last I checked, I’m still paying municipal school taxes even though my 29-year old son has been out of school for….a while.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children?
> 
> The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.
> 
> The state is, by definition, coercive.


I wouldn't go so far as coerce.  But practically speaking, I don't see how else this arrangement would work.

Are the school boards going to be expected to provide regular testing for non-vaccinated students?  If so, where will the money come from to pay for those tests?  Would the school boards have to raise school fees?  Do we collectively pay for it, perhaps in the form of property tax increases?  

Or will they tell the families of non-vaccinated students that the onus is on them to provide a negative test?



No idea either way.  Am just spit-balling scenarios as per the above posts related to schools.

🤷‍♂️


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (17 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children?
> 
> The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.
> 
> The state is, by definition, coercive.



Actually, children are not required to be sent to government schools. Homeschooling is completely legal in every province as far as I know.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Actually, children are not required to be sent to government schools. Homeschooling is completely legal in every province as far as I know.



Fair enough.  I stand corrected.  I was familiar with a time of truant officers.


----------



## lenaitch (17 Aug 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Isn't that going to be awfully expensive though, to have hundreds/thousands/hundreds of thousands of kids tested on a regular basis?  School boards are always complaining about funding, I don't see how this is sustainable unless the tests are done & paid for by the families, which I'm not opposed to.


Agree. Tying up healthcare workers, who have been stretched and frayed for a year and a half, and not particularly overabundant, to administer daily tests, at every school (4844 elementary and high schools in Ontario) seems unsustainable.  

*****
Paying school  taxes ('educational property taxes' in Ontario), whether or not you have kids in the system, is part of contributing to a civil society, kinda like funding the military regardless of you political or ideological bent.  Parents are free to home school or use private schools.


----------



## Kilted (17 Aug 2021)

LittleBlackDevil said:


> Legally I don't think they can. It would be a very interesting legal battle if they tried.
> 
> I think I know they can't, which is why I am seeing lots of releases were the "mandatory" vaccine actually means if you don't get the jab you have to be routinely tested which in my view is very different from "get the jab or we're putting you in jail or taking away your career/livelihood".


The notwithstanding clause allows the government to ignore certain parts of the Charter including "life, liberty, and security of the person."  New Brunswick was talking about using it for normal vaccinations before Covid.  I don't know why people keep bringing up assault, it's like any other medical procedure.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (18 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> The notwithstanding clause allows the government to ignore certain parts of the Charter including "life, liberty, and security of the person."  New Brunswick was talking about using it for normal vaccinations before Covid.  I don't know why people keep bringing up assault, it's like any other medical procedure.


Which if the person is not consenting is assault. 

The fact that atrocity the notwithstanding clause (a atrocity in the fact it only exists to give the government the power to violate your rights) is the go to response whenever a government is violating a citizens rights, tells me a lot about what is proposed and how it is morally reprehensible.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (18 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> The notwithstanding clause allows the government to ignore certain parts of the Charter including "life, liberty, and security of the person."  New Brunswick was talking about using it for normal vaccinations before Covid.



I think that @Eaglelord17 said it well when he said that the use of s. 33 (which is essentially an admission that "we know this violates the Charter but we're doing it anyway") says a lot about the moral reprehensibility of a proposal. It's true that s. 33 is a thing, it has a 5 year lifespan, and that it was built into the Charter to allow government to opt out of the _Charter_ when it became inconvenient. Up until recently there had been enough respect for Charter values that it was almost never invoked, but rule by imperial fiat seems to be the trend (executive orders in the US, orders-in-council in Canada, and invocation of s. 33).



Kilted said:


> I don't know why people keep bringing up assault, it's like any other medical procedure.



It is like any other medical procedure, and the reason people keep bringing up assault is because ANY medical procedure is an assault if it happens without the patient's consent. This has always been the case and you can find court decisions of people being awarded damages for having procedures done (often while under anesthetic) when the surgeon noticed something and fixed it which was not discussed beforehand.I


----------



## brihard (18 Aug 2021)

Nobody’s gonna be putting a needle in anyone without consent. “Assault” is just histrionics.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Aug 2021)

Next thing you know, they will want to propose that people need 'passports' to drive, practice medicine, or fly an airplane! Fascists!

Society is based on reasonably restricting freedoms for the common good, welcome to the party. Pretty basic Canadian civics 101.

You can choose not to get a vaccine, but that won't be without consequences, like limiting your options to be able to do things, and possibly where you can work. No one is pinning anyone down to vaccinate them, so give the hyperbole a rest, as it undermines your arguement. Alternately, go straight to accusing people of being Nazis; reductio ad hitlerum for the "win".

"I am hestitant to get the vaccine because .." is valid, and something that actual medical professionals can explain (ie people outside of Facebook). 

'Muh Freedums" on the other hand...


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (18 Aug 2021)

Health records, needle books, immunization records,  or now the term Vax Passport have been around for ages.  Some countries require visitors to get certain shots before entering their country.

see the link it listed immunizations you must have to enter some countries. https://www.who.int/ith/2016-ith-county-list.pdf 

Schools have required some vaccines for decades, I can remember lining up in public school and in high school to get my needles. 
I was applying for my Green Card to live and work legally in the USA and they required some vaccines but since I was Canadian the doctor figured I had gotten most of them as a Child so he was not concerned. 

Under the immigration laws of the United States, a foreign national who applies for an immigrant visa abroad, or who seeks to adjust status to a permanent resident while in the United States, is required to receive vaccinations to prevent the following diseases:


Mumps
Measles
Rubella
Polio
Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids
Pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type B
Hepatitis B
Any other vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices
So without a needle book, vaccine record, or vaccine passport, how else would you prove you had these shots before you applied for entry?
I do not think doctors are going to just take your word any more due to rise in diseases that use to be almost unheard of making a come back
Measles is making a come back in some countries , Afghanistan is 7 on the list released from CDC.

Polio cases are high also in Afghanistan. 

Vaccine records are important for travel, school, and other places not just because of the issues today,


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2021)

If you want to join the club then you follow the club's rules.
If you don't want to follow the club's rules then don't join the club.

Simple.

Just so long as somebody, including the government, doesn't say you must join the club.
Immigrants get a choice.  They don't have to immigrate.
Natural citizens have a different problem.


----------



## mariomike (18 Aug 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> So without a needle book, vaccine record, or vaccine passport, how else would you prove you had these shots before you applied for entry?


My family doctor has that.

Also, because my plan was to retire to Arizona, for good measure I got documentation from our Medical Director where I used to work. They had to keep an up to date record on Hep B, (Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis), proof of immunity to Varicella TDP, flu shot, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) anyway.

If your family doctor, or employee health unit, can't help you, try your local municipal heath unit. They may be able to.


----------



## CountDC (18 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> So you are going to coerce payment from parents to attend a public facility to which they are already under coercion to send their children?
> 
> The state mandates (starting to detest that word - nothing is given), the state requires that children be sent to school under threat of the law.
> 
> The state is, by definition, coercive.



The state requires that children are schooled, not that they be sent to school.  Many opt to home school the children.


----------



## CountDC (18 Aug 2021)

So we get the vaccine to protect us and others from the virus and then are scared that those without the vaccine will give us the virus so require them to get the vaccine or be punished.    hmmmm.

Personally I think let them go without and when they catch it let them treat themselves at home.   Vaccine passport to get medical treatment for Covid as the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Aug 2021)

CountDC said:


> Vaccine passport to get medical treatment for Covid as the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting it.


No, but it does massively decrease the rate of serious side effects, requirements for hospitalization, long term effects (like organ damage) and drops the chance of death to near zero.

Also seems to help people with 'long COVID' recover.

So aside from helping with COVID, prevents the health care system from being overrun, so doctors don't need to triage things and let people die for what would normally be recoverable issues because of lack of resources.

for ref: see story below on impact of COVID on cancer treatment;



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-cancer-invasive-surgery-1.6142481
		

Bigger tumours, delayed diagnoses as cancer patients struggle amid pandemic​​Doctors say there's 'no doubt' cancer patients are facing more invasive treatment​


----------



## kev994 (18 Aug 2021)

CountDC said:


> So we get the vaccine to protect us and others from the virus and then are scared that those without the vaccine will give us the virus so require them to get the vaccine or be punished.    hmmmm.
> 
> Personally I think let them go without and when they catch it let them treat themselves at home.   Vaccine passport to get medical treatment for Covid as the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting it.


My kids aren’t old enough to get vaccinated, so they’re not only harming themselves.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Aug 2021)

CountDC said:


> Personally I think let them go without and when they catch it let them treat themselves at home.   Vaccine passport to get medical treatment for Covid as the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting it.



OK so if a smoker develops lung cancer do we tell them "gee you idiot that's your own fault, go home and treat yourself".


----------



## FJAG (19 Aug 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> OK so if a smoker develops lung cancer do we tell them "gee you idiot that's your own fault, go home and treat yourself".


If you are as old as I am (and I'm sure you are) and grew up in a blue haze because ... Marlboro country ... then, no; but younger folks who have known for decades what this shyte will do to them .....

Smokers already pay extra insurance premiums because of their self-inflicted risks. I certainly do not advocate withholding medical treatment but I would certainly advocate for tax incentives for non smokers so that smokers pay a little more for government funded health care.

When you phrase things as "punishing offenders" you automatically raise a negative reaction. It's much better to provide "incentives" for those who comply.

🍻


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Aug 2021)

So let me get this straight, first we force people to be part of and pay for a healthcare system you cannot opt out of or have any other alternative to. Then we should also put all sorts of restrictions on receiving medical care because of things that could have been 'preventable' or based off your own decisions? Smoking, Alcohol, maybe not wearing a seat belt, oh eating all that junk food caused diabetes? Well that's on you. Basically everything thing you deal with can be blamed on you in some way or form. 

Got the flu? Well you should have been hiding in the woods away from society. Car accident? You shouldn't have been driving, everyone knows it is a dangerous act. 

Welcome to the creation of a divided society, one where certain people believe they know what is best for everyone else and if you don't comply they shall do their utmost to destroy you or ruin you.


----------



## Kilted (19 Aug 2021)

I think that a more realistic way of addressing things like smoking is placing high taxes on cigarettes/vapes. This helps to deter smoking/vaping and helps to recover some of the health care costs. I'm sure we will see the taxes gradually increase over time. I'd love to see the legal age gradually rise as well.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Aug 2021)

Pretty sure tobacco is taxed high already. The way I see it, is most smokers will die earlier thus they are less of a burden on the health care system. IMO.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Aug 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Pretty sure tobacco is taxed high already. The way I see it, is most smokers will die earlier thus they are less of a burden on the health care system. IMO.


Not quite. The last research I read on the subject [1] indicated that smokers cost on average $1800 more per year, per person over non-smokers.

[1] Impact of smoking on health system costs


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Aug 2021)

CountDC said:


> Personally I think let them go without and when they catch it let them treat themselves at home. Vaccine passport to get medical treatment for Covid as the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting it.



Jesus.  You really should re-read your own post.  If people get it (that are vaccinated), support them.  If they get it (not vaccinated), too bad so sad.

Let's go ahead and cancel all the knee and hip surgeries for anyone who is obese.  Paralyzed while speeding on your motorcycle?  Sucks to be you!!!!, should have kept to the speed limit stupid!


----------



## hattrick72 (20 Aug 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Pretty sure tobacco is taxed high already. The way I see it, is most smokers will die earlier thus they are less of a burden on the health care system. IMO.


The majority of smokers live until they are 70 and when they die cancer isn't cheap.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (24 Aug 2021)

COVID-19 vaccine safety: Report on side effects following immunization - Canada.ca
					

Information about any adverse events following immunization (AEFI) that individuals have reported after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Canada. These adverse events are not necessarily related to the vaccine.




					health-infobase.canada.ca
				



If I'm a healthy under 40, the government is pushing me to get a vaccine of a disease I have a 99.996% chance of walking away from.
Now look at all those side effects.  I can catch it and get good immunity or I can take this injection. An injection that the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ADMITS MAY FUCK UP MY HEART and give me all sorts of shit. I'm not saying Covid is better. Covid is probably worse. I don't feel like taking your dirty clot shot.
Video very much related.





Fuck your tyranny. Freedom for *ALL* Canadians.  Fuck your politics.
I don't give a fuck about your politics. I will not be divided. I will not turn against fellow Canadians.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Aug 2021)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> COVID-19 vaccine safety: Report on side effects following immunization - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Information about any adverse events following immunization (AEFI) that individuals have reported after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Canada. These adverse events are not necessarily related to the vaccine.
> ...


You know MAYBE you should take your opinions elsewhere. Get stuffed, STFU and go away.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Aug 2021)

Actual COVID statistics still has a 1.8% death rate, with approx 25% of people that get it having 'long COVID' symptoms that include severe fatigue, difficulty breathing, permanent damage to organs and more.  Get gooder at math before trying to quote statistics, and do some research on actual non-fatal but life changing effects. Best case you eventually recover from the long term side effects, but worse case you become unserviceable and get punted for not meeting universality of service for being a dumb ass.

So you have a 75% chance of walking away, and a 98% of not dying, but the downsides are almost completely preventable with a vaccine. You are statistically less likely to die in a car ride, but most people agree seat belts and airbags make sense, and that drivers should be licensed.  

Won't be too sorry if people get released for complaining about 'muh rights', without actually understand A) what their rights are and B) actual facts about what they are complaining about. Probably a Venn diagram there but probably an overlap there between administrative burdens, soup sandwhiches, and anti-vax nutjobs. Also, no one has actually ordered CAF members to do anything, because most CAF members aren't fucking idiots and were happy to jump at the chance to get a vaccine that people elsewhere are literally dying to get, so the uptake is pretty high.


----------



## mariomike (24 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Also, no one has actually ordered CAF members to do anything, because most CAF members aren't fucking idiots and were happy to jump at the chance to get a vaccine that people elsewhere are literally dying to get, so the uptake is pretty high.


In today's news,


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430266418080231436


----------



## lenaitch (24 Aug 2021)

mariomike said:


> In today's news,
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430266418080231436



Actually not surprised.  No doubt this has been discussed at the Police Association of Ontario level.  What remains to be seen is whether the TPA is in step with the PAOs position or is an outlier - I haven't seen positions from other major associations.


----------



## brihard (24 Aug 2021)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> COVID-19 vaccine safety: Report on side effects following immunization - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Information about any adverse events following immunization (AEFI) that individuals have reported after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Canada. These adverse events are not necessarily related to the vaccine.
> ...


Be a lot cooler if you threw a dumb red hat on and did an angry rant video in your truck.


----------



## Weinie (24 Aug 2021)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> COVID-19 vaccine safety: Report on side effects following immunization - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Information about any adverse events following immunization (AEFI) that individuals have reported after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Canada. These adverse events are not necessarily related to the vaccine.
> ...


I actually support your decision and your evocation of your freedom of choice. But understand, there are consequences. You are best positioned to know whether the cost-benefit analysis works out for you.

We, as a collective, and based on what I suggest is sound medical advice across the international community, have decided that vaccination is the best way forward. Your opinion may differ.

The cost-benefit analysis calculus will force you to think about/limit your ability for travel, employment, social interactions, and day to day living..  If you are assuming a "rage against the machine" position, you will likely lose out against science and popular opinion.


----------



## FJAG (24 Aug 2021)

mariomike said:


> In today's news,
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430266418080231436


On the other hand the union representing 43,000 of Disney World's 77,000 is on board with mandatory vaccinations or loose your job.  



> Disney World Has An Agreement To Require Union Workers To Be Vaccinated
> 
> 
> The deal requires workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by Oct. 22 but they can apply for a medical or religious exemption. Disney cruises will soon require passengers 12 and up to get the shots.
> ...


Leaves you wondering which one of these two organizations is the real Mickey Mouse club.

😉


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> On the other hand the union representing 43,000 of Disney World's 77,000 is on board with mandatory vaccinations or loose your job.
> 
> 
> Leaves you wondering which one of these two organizations is the real Mickey Mouse club.
> ...


Mickey runs a tight ship. That I can declare with 100% confidence 👍🏻


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Actual COVID statistics still has a 1.8% death rate, with approx 25% of people that get it having 'long COVID' symptoms that include severe fatigue, difficulty breathing, permanent damage to organs and more.  Get gooder at math before trying to quote statistics, and do some research on actual non-fatal but life changing effects. Best case you eventually recover from the long term side effects, but worse case you become unserviceable and get punted for not meeting universality of service for being a dumb ass.
> 
> So you have a 75% chance of walking away, and a 98% of not dying, but the downsides are almost completely preventable with a vaccine. You are statistically less likely to die in a car ride, but most people agree seat belts and airbags make sense, and that drivers should be licensed.
> 
> Won't be too sorry if people get released for complaining about 'muh rights', without actually understand A) what their rights are and B) actual facts about what they are complaining about. Probably a Venn diagram there but probably an overlap there between administrative burdens, soup sandwhiches, and anti-vax nutjobs. Also, no one has actually ordered CAF members to do anything, because most CAF members aren't fucking idiots and were happy to jump at the chance to get a vaccine that people elsewhere are literally dying to get, so the uptake is pretty high.


Get gooder at math lmao. 

I'm not siding with anyone on this, but come on. 1.8% death rate? Where are you getting this statistic? We have no way of knowing the percentage because not everyone was getting tested; therefore, we can not know the denominator..... 

~27,000 deaths with a population of 37,000,000. 

I get we had a lot of restrictions that were put in place to limit spread etc. So let's look at Sweden who stayed open (as far as I'm aware anyways) 

~15,000 deaths with a population of 10,250,000

So a jump from 0.07% death rate to 0.14%. 

I think this is the far more accurate way of determine the death rate and I'm willing to accept that people that died with COVID and maybe not directly because of COVID are in these numbers.


----------



## tomydoom (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Get gooder at math lmao.
> 
> I'm not siding with anyone on this, but come on. 1.8% death rate? Where are you getting this statistic? We have no way of knowing the percentage because not everyone was getting tested; therefore, we can not know the denominator.....
> 
> ...


Sweden did indeed have restrictions,  I was unable to find the full details.  However at the link are details of the easing of restrictions in July.  









						Modified restrictions as of 15 July
					

At a press conference on Monday, it was announced that a number of restrictions will be lifted as of 15 July. This is in line with step 3 of the...




					www.government.se
				




I currently live in Ireland, here there have been 340,000 confirmed cases and 5074 deaths attributed to COVID.  Putting a death rate at approx 1.5%, approximately inline with what was quoted above.  Admittedly, with asymptomatic carriers  included (the unknowns)  the mortality rate would be lowered.  Further, Ireland experienced approx 10% more deaths in 2020 vs 2019. 









						Analysis estimates 3,200 excess deaths from Covid-19 in Ireland
					

An analysis of death notices on RIP.ie has estimated there have been in excess of 3,200 deaths from Covid-19 across the country.




					www.independent.ie
				




Seriously, with most of the worlds governments, of different political stripes, doing largely the same thing.  I would extrapolate that they are all receiving the same advise from public health experts.  People that can't see that and think this is just a political game are a risk to everyone that cannot be vaccinated, including my 11 year old asthmatic daughter. Putting "my rights" before the common good, is just selfish.


----------



## mariomike (25 Aug 2021)

Nothing new about death. Every province / state keeps statisitics. 

I would be interested in knowing how much the death rate - of any non-traumatic cause - per capita has increased since Covid.


----------



## tomydoom (25 Aug 2021)

mariomike said:


> Nothing new about death. Every province / state keeps statisitics.
> 
> I would be interested in knowing how much the death rate - of any non-traumatic cause - per capita has increased since Covid.


Some charts and tables with that date tabulated here.









						Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)
					

Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions.1 In this case, we’re interested in how the number of deaths during the COVID-19...




					ourworldindata.org


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2021)

mariomike said:


> Nothing new about death. Every province / state keeps statisitics.
> 
> I would be interested in knowing how much the death rate - of any non-traumatic cause - per capita has increased since Covid.


Here in the US, our population actually declined last year - after years of growth - Last last year it didn't grow was 1944, and there was a World War...
  I would call that a clue the COVID related death rate is rather more significant than has actually been listed.


----------



## tomydoom (25 Aug 2021)

KevinB said:


> Here in the US, our population actually declined last year - after years of growth - Last last year it didn't grow was 1944, and there was a World War...
> I would call that a clue the COVID related death rate is rather more significant than has actually been listed.


That's scary.

BTW, I know you from back in the day on the Mattawa Plains.


----------



## mariomike (25 Aug 2021)

KevinB said:


> I would call that a clue the COVID related death rate is rather more significant than has actually been listed.


Sure. 

How many 9-1-1 cardiac arrests, pronounced DOA at home, and therefore never transported to hospital, have actually been listed as Covid related? 🤷‍♂️ 



> Here in the US, our population actually declined last year - after years of growth -



Not surprised to read that. If you don't mind me asking, by how much of a decline?



> Last last year it didn't grow was 1944, and there was a World War...



I read that total U.S. deaths in the war was 405,000. ( 291,557 in combat - 113,842 "other". )

630,813 U.S. Covid deaths as of *Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 06:00 AM EDT.*


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Get gooder at math lmao.
> 
> I'm not siding with anyone on this, but come on. 1.8% death rate? Where are you getting this statistic? We have no way of knowing the percentage because not everyone was getting tested; therefore, we can not know the denominator.....
> 
> ...


26, 849 deaths in 1.42 M cases in Canada= 1.8% fatality rate. It's based on number of infections, not number of people in a country. It's obviously non-fatal with zero side effects for people who haven't been infected, which is why social distancing, masks, improved ventilation etc slowed down the case numbers (and daily death rate).

In the initial phases some countries had a fatality rate as high as 6-10% of known cases, but that's because their hospitals were overrun so the number of non-critical cases weren't included, inflating the death rate. The delta variant also seems to be more virulent, and no guarantee other variations won't have other side effects. Takes about six-eight weeks total from first shot to two weeks after the last shot before you are fully covered, so if you change your mind later there is a big lag before you're covered.

Long COVID rates are estimated, but not as well understood, but it's significant enough that it's being studied. Even people who weren't hospitalized have had permanent damage to their lungs and heart, and that includes younger people than yourself.

No issue with people refusing the vaccine, just pisses me off when people quote/spread misinformation, manipulate facts, and otherwise talk out their arse. That's not making an educated choice (and actively promoting willful ignorance), but you'll still have to live with whatever consequences that come with that choice, so fill your boots if you want to take the word of random internet experts over legions of experienced immunoligists, epidomologists and other medical folks that have dedicated their lives to keeping people healthy.


----------



## QV (25 Aug 2021)

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Oldfield-Brief-on-SARS-CoV-2-Delta-Variant.pdf
		


Outdated by a few weeks but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> 26, 849 deaths in 1.42 M cases in Canada= 1.8% fatality rate. It's based on number of infections, not number of people in a country. It's obviously non-fatal with zero side effects for people who haven't been infected, which is why social distancing, masks, improved ventilation etc slowed down the case numbers (and daily death rate).
> 
> In the initial phases some countries had a fatality rate as high as 6-10% of known cases, but that's because their hospitals were overrun so the number of non-critical cases weren't included, inflating the death rate. The delta variant also seems to be more virulent, and no guarantee other variations won't have other side effects. Takes about six-eight weeks total from first shot to two weeks after the last shot before you are fully covered, so if you change your mind later there is a big lag before you're covered.
> 
> ...


Tomydoom
I'm not complaining about health measures and I have followed them. I don't have a problem with people's personal choice, I'm vaccinated. If the military mandates this vaccine, then there will be 10,000-15,000 members that have to make a tough decision and the leadership may not be happy with the numbers. (Maybe it is closer to 5,000 after seeing the empty positions posted in another thread). 

Now to the point I was trying to make. We were testing asymptomatic people because apparently they can spread the virus. We were encouraging people to test without symptoms and if they came back positive they were grounded for the 14 days. The number of people that would not go and get tested without symptoms is going to be high. The main reason being they don't have sick days to cover them off if they come back positive. 

We don't have a picture of confirmed spread. So by going by the number of confirmed cases is spreading misinformation. You are not doing it nefariously or to be misleading, but nonetheless it is misinformation IMHO. 

Without the public health orders, the number of deaths would've been higher. I just don't think it would be much higher than double. 

If we look at India they had a 1.3% death rate for confirmed cases and it is 0.03% if you look at the total population. I think the effect is fairly linear and consistent across the world population. I got this number from the Google tracker 426,000 deaths and 32,000,000 cases. I also believe they ran out of testing capability so the case count could be higher, but I haven't confirmed that memory yet.


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Given this thread is on disobeying a perceived illegal order, here is my scenario. 

Ontario health determines we can't reach herd immunity unless we vaccinate the 12 and under crowd this will ensure 90% of all people are vaccinated. The emergency order that is in effect now is the same emergency order in effect for this scenario.
The CDS orders CAF personal to cordon off every city with a population higher than 100,000 people. No traffic is allowed out, unless they can prove every member in the car is vaccinated. Once the cordons are operational they announce a lockdown. Public health, with the support of local police and CAF personal, will go door to door vaccinate every citizen regardless of age. People that don't comply are either arrested or given a summary offence ticket. This continues until every home has had a visit.


Would the CAF comply, or would this get snuffed out at the higher levels?


----------



## QV (25 Aug 2021)

Back in late 2020 Stanford University found that COVID-19 had spread far more widely than originally reported. In fact 50-85 times more than the confirmed number of cases. This was in the news very briefly. Stanford was rebuked for this and it became difficult to find the report and it's data online. Stanford's findings suggested the virus though highly contagious was/is far less deadly than was being reported.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Aug 2021)

Deleted


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Given this thread is on disobeying a perceived illegal order, here is my scenario.
> 
> Ontario health determines we can't reach herd immunity unless we vaccinate the 12 and under crowd this will ensure 90% of all people are vaccinated. The emergency order that is in effect now is the same emergency order in effect for this scenario.
> The CDS orders CAF personal to cordon off every city with a population higher than 100,000 people. No traffic is allowed out, unless they can prove every member in the car is vaccinated. Once the cordons are operational they announce a lockdown. Public health, with the support of local police and CAF personal, will go door to door vaccinate every citizen regardless of age. People that don't comply are either arrested or given a summary offence ticket. This continues until every home has had a visit.
> ...



You're suggesting in your scenario the CDS makes this "command decision" on his/her own?

Can we talk about something more realistic, like UFOs commanded by Dragon/Unicorn hybrid warriors that use liquid bubble gum as their main offensive wpn system?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2021)

QV said:


> Back in late 2020 Stanford University found that COVID-19 had spread far more widely than originally reported. In fact 50-85 times more than the confirmed number of cases. This was in the news very briefly. Stanford was rebuked for this and it became difficult to find the report and it's data online. Stanford's findings suggested the virus though highly contagious was/is far less deadly than was being reported.


A lot of people felt the virus had reached the ROW by even Sept of 2019 and that the Chinese were suppressing information on it far earlier than first realized.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2021)

We in Corrections have made being vaccinated mandatory. The inmates aren't being made to take it. 

Some were up in arms about it because "vulnerable people" were mentioned and they automatically made the jump that we are only concerned about inmates.

I pointed out the vulnerable ones are not only inmates but some of your fellow officers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> A lot of people felt the virus had reached the ROW by even Sept of 2019 and that the Chinese were suppressing information on it far earlier than first realized.


I am still 100% positive I got it back in January 2020,,,,never so sick in my life for 2 days.  While I was lying on a mat and a pillow beside the bathtub for day one [in case i puked, knew I couldn't walk to toilet] I remember thinking if there was a magic button here that said "feel better right now but take a year off of your life" I'd have smacked it down in a micro-second.    Still would just thinking about how I felt......


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2021)

mariomike said:


> Sure.
> 
> How many 9-1-1 cardiac arrests, pronounced DOA at home, and therefore never transported to hospital, have actually been listed as Covid related? 🤷‍♂️
> 
> ...


If anything the news of late suggests that a lot of COVID deaths where under represented - due to poor reporting of Nursing Home or Assisted Living Facilities not reporting correctly (or at all).

As far as the decline goes - depending on who you believe it was either a 0.00036% growth - flat - or a 0.00057 Decrease.
  Part of the problem is an official census is done every 10 years - and 2020 was the year - 
 The rest are done via spot reporting and estimations based on that, the estimations have been high or low in the past.
 There was a 29.5M increase from April 1 2010 to July 1 2020.
   Generally there was a 6.3% growth over the 10 years 
census.gov data



I think the flat from WW2 was also that a lot of men of age where deployed outside CONUS - which of course lead to the baby boom when they returned.


----------



## KINGLAWRENCE (25 Aug 2021)

The covid Is the chinese flu, no big deal If you are healthy.the killer Is the vaccine,anyone that gets the vax will get really sick or die within 36 months. do your own DD


----------



## QV (25 Aug 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I am still 100% positive I got it back in January 2020,,,,never so sick in my life for 2 days.  While I was lying on a mat and a pillow beside the bathtub for day one [in case i puked, knew I couldn't walk to toilet] I remember thinking if there was a magic button here that said "feel better right now but take a year off of your life" I'd have smacked it down in a micro-second.    Still would just thinking about how I felt......


I was in a similar boat at the same time including everyone I was immediately connected to, family, work colleagues, etc.  For me it lasted about 3 weeks, pretty bad lung infection, no puking or stomach issues though.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Aug 2021)

KINGLAWRENCE said:


> Russian disinfo deleted



FTFY.


----------



## lenaitch (25 Aug 2021)

KINGLAWRENCE said:


> The covid Is the chinese flu, no big deal If you are healthy.the killer Is the vaccine,anyone that gets the vax will get really sick or die within 36 months. do your own DD



I'm willing to set the timer if you are.  Seeing as none of the vaccines have been around that long, I'm betting you have no empirical basis for your position.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Aug 2021)

QV said:


> I was in a similar boat at the same time including everyone I was immediately connected to, family, work colleagues, etc.  For me it lasted about 3 weeks, pretty bad lung infection, no puking or stomach issues though.


Never did puke,.....just felt so horrible I figured it was going to happen.  Anyway, it could explain how, months later, I spent a 12 hour dayshift in a small control room with a guy who ended up in the hospital that night for 4 days and I didn't even test positive.


----------



## KINGLAWRENCE (25 Aug 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I'm willing to set the timer if you are.  Seeing as none of the vaccines have been around that long, I'm betting you have no empirical basis for your position.


no need too put a timer on It, just look at all the censoring of prominent doctors,should open the eyes of most logical people,and the banning of alternative meds


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Aug 2021)

KINGLAWRENCE said:


> no need too put a timer on It, just look at all the censoring of prominent doctors,should open the eyes of most logical people,and the banning of alternative meds


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## KINGLAWRENCE (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Tomydoom
> I'm not complaining about health measures and I have followed them. I don't have a problem with people's personal choice, I'm vaccinated. If the military mandates this vaccine, then there will be 10,000-15,000 members that have to make a tough decision and the leadership may not be happy with the numbers. (Maybe it is closer to 5,000 after seeing the empty positions posted in another thread).
> 
> Now to the point I was trying to make. We were testing asymptomatic people because apparently they can spread the virus. We were encouraging people to test without symptoms and if they came back positive they were grounded for the 14 days. The number of people that would not go and get tested without symptoms is going to be high. The main reason being they don't have sick days to cover them off if they come back positive.
> ...


look at Israel the vaccinated are getting sick and dyeing, the vaccine does not work


----------



## brihard (25 Aug 2021)

KINGLAWRENCE said:


> The covid Is the chinese flu, no big deal If you are healthy.the killer Is the vaccine,anyone that gets the vax will get really sick or die within 36 months. do your own DD


Ladies and gentlemen- WEEDFORGEN!


----------



## KINGLAWRENCE (25 Aug 2021)

KINGLAWRENCE said:


> The covid Is the chinese flu, no big deal If you are healthy.the killer Is the vaccine,anyone that gets the vax will get really sick or die within 36 months. do your own DD





			https://banned.video/watch?id=6125791692e112699e46fc79


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> You're suggesting in your scenario the CDS makes this "command decision" on his/her own?
> 
> Can we talk about something more realistic, like UFOs commanded by Dragon/Unicorn hybrid warriors that use liquid bubble gum as their main offensive wpn system?


I'm suggesting Ontario requests military assistance and the CDS complies and gives the order. I'm not suggesting the CDS wakes up one morning and decides this in their own.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2021)

KINGLAWRENCE said:


> The covid Is the chinese flu, no big deal If you are healthy.the killer Is the vaccine,anyone that gets the vax will get really sick or die within 36 months. do your own DD


Take a fucking hike.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Ontario health determines we can't reach herd immunity unless we vaccinate the 12 and under crowd this will ensure 90% of all people are vaccinated. The emergency order that is in effect now is the same emergency order in effect for this scenario.
> The CDS orders CAF personal to cordon off every city with a population higher than 100,000 people. No traffic is allowed out, unless they can prove every member in the car is vaccinated. Once the cordons are operational they announce a lockdown.





hattrick72 said:


> I'm suggesting Ontario requests military assistance and the CDS complies and gives the order. I'm not suggesting the CDS wakes up one morning and decides this in their own.



Ok.

Are you suggesting the CDS can/does/will act unilaterally and that none of the Canadian federal government apparatus will be involved in the decision to sp/deny request from the province?  Are you asking if that is the case?

This is probably a good place to start reading.  QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 23 Duties In Aid Of The Civil Power - Canada.ca


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Ok.
> 
> Are you suggesting the CDS can/does/will act unilaterally and that none of the Canadian federal government apparatus will be involved in the decision to sp/deny request from the province?  Are you asking if that is the case?
> 
> This is probably a good place to start reading.  QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 23 Duties In Aid Of The Civil Power - Canada.ca


My assumption would be Ontario requests aide through the MND and CDS intends to act of the request. The premise is the government is saying mass safety will trump individual rights and they have enough faith in the vaccine to encourage and allow children under 12 to be vaccinated. Much in the same way they encouraged mix and match without studies. 

Ontario health comes to the conclusion that 90% or 95% of the population is required to be vaccinated for herd immunity. They know by starting a mass mandatory vaccination validation campaign will induce riots so they make their request prior to announcing anything to the public. 

The idea is to keep people out of the city and prevent unvaccinated from escaping. Once Ilan is in place the announcement is made and everything gets rolling. 

Would this be stopped?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

The real question may be political;  would the sitting government authorize the use of the Canadian Forces to 'control' the population?

The next question may be "realism";  does the CAF have the assets to (help) control the population?

So...instead of asking "would this be stopped", I'd ask "would this even have a chance of starting'?

My amateur opinion (uniformed/inexperienced opinion?) is "no, this would have no chance of starting".


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The real question may be political;  would the sitting government authorize the use of the Canadian Forces to 'control' the population?
> 
> The next question may be "realism";  does the CAF have the assets to (help) control the population?
> 
> ...


Would you follow the order if it made it this far given the CDC guidance on vaccination of children.

Australia has utilised their forces to help in lockdown and have gone door to door (unarmed) to support the arrest of citizens that were not following qaurantine while sick. So I think the political will exists to make such a call if they deem it to be the safest option for society. 

We have the ability to surround a few cities and institute checkpoints. We also have the ability to help vaccinate and support officers going door to door while we are unarmed. 

Would our leadership stop this from starting if the governing power wouldn't reverse it's decision on the under 12 population.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I believe the government's are acting in the public's best interest. There are aspects of the response that I never thought would happen. Banning family from crossing a provincial border to travel 15 minutes from home to see each other. Segregating people with medical exemptions from society because those exemptions will not allow them to vaccinate. 

I don't believe the above would happen for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it is that far fetched.


----------



## Weinie (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Would you follow the order if it made it this far given the CDC guidance on vaccination of children.
> 
> Australia has utilised their forces to help in lockdown and have gone door to door (unarmed) to support the arrest of citizens that were not following qaurantine while sick. So I think the political will exists to make such a call if they deem it to be the safest option for society.
> 
> ...


My advice: Some may best be advised to un-crinkle the tinfoil surrounding their heads.


----------



## Kilted (25 Aug 2021)

KINGLAWRENCE said:


> The covid Is the chinese flu, no big deal If you are healthy.the killer Is the vaccine,anyone that gets the vax will get really sick or die within 36 months. do your own DD


Which unit is he trying to pass himself off as a member of?  It kind of looks like CSOR, but the motto is different.


----------



## Weinie (25 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> Which unit is he trying to pass himself off as a member of?  It kind of looks like CSOR, but the motto is different.


SSF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

SSF or SKF (Special K Forces...cereal killers!)  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Would our leadership stop this from starting if the governing power wouldn't reverse it's decision on the under 12 population.



Criminal Code






						QR&O: Volume II – Chapter 103 – Service Offences - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 103 - Service Offences




					www.canada.ca
				




It is the job of the nations citizens to 'stop this from happening';  not the nations armed forces.  We're a democracy and the 'voice of the people' is the instrument that should make a gov't rethink it's policies, decisions, etc.

As for me;  I will follow any and all lawful commands given to me by my Chain of Command.


----------



## Kilted (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The real question may be political;  would the sitting government authorize the use of the Canadian Forces to 'control' the population?
> 
> The next question may be "realism";  does the CAF have the assets to (help) control the population?
> 
> ...


I feel like if there was any chance of this happening, it would have occurred in the first wave, not now.


----------



## Kilted (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> SSF or SKF (Special K Forces...cereal killers!)  😁


I wonder if his name is OCdt Ladislas Kenderesi?


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Criminal Code
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is being ordered to vaccinate a six year old kid a lawful order, should the PM deem it necessary? Without changes to the vaccine guidelines of course. 

To be clear, if I was given the order I would comply. How I felt after the operation is completed would be up in the air.


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> I feel like if there was any chance of this happening, it would have occurred in the first wave, not now.


I feel that as time goes by and we become more desperate to hit vaccination targets it becomes more likely. 

Our vaccination rates is fairly high, especially compared to Australia, so we would be pushing this in 10-15% of the population, vice 90-100% at the beginning.


----------



## Weinie (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Is being ordered to vaccinate a six year old kid a lawful order, should the PM deem it necessary? Without changes to the vaccine guidelines of course.
> 
> To be clear, if I was given the order I would comply. How I felt after the operation is completed would be up in the air.


So, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or seeking to stoke a fire that doesn't exist.


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> So, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or seeking to stoke a fire that doesn't exist.


At my level, I would have to assume such an order would be lawful and there would be no use questioning it. I think it is a good question even if the likelihood is less than 1%. The 1% has happened before and it will happen again. 

To me it is a simple scenario, and I don't see much difference in it, than mandating a passport to achieve the same goal. One is a type of cohesion and the other is more forceful and deliberate. 

They both can be utilised to get to the end state that is desired. What alternative is left if the passports don't get us to 90% vaccinated and or people don't do the boosters if they are required and we are stuck in perpetual lockdown?


----------



## FJAG (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Is being ordered to vaccinate a six year old kid a lawful order, should the PM deem it necessary? Without changes to the vaccine guidelines of course.
> 
> To be clear, if I was given the order I would comply. How I felt after the operation is completed would be up in the air.


Back in the dark ages - as a six-year old in the 1950s - I and millions of my classmates were regularly vaccinated for all kinds of stuff. Never did get smallpox, or polio, or diphtheria or any of the host of things that were killing kids in the thousands ten or twenty years earlier.

But then we had playgrounds like these:











When did six-year olds become so fragile and precious?

😉


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> When did six-year olds become so fragile and precious?


Since March 2020. We've locked them away from their friends, forbid them to touch anything and forced masks on their faces for a virus that's really significantly less dangerous than any other seasonal virus they are exposed to normal. We're sacrificing their mental and social well being to try to save ourselves, and its not even working.


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Back in the dark ages - as a six-year old in the 1950s - I and millions of my classmates were regularly vaccinated for all kinds of stuff. Never did get smallpox, or polio, or diphtheria or any of the host of things that were killing kids in the thousands ten or twenty years earlier.
> 
> But then we had playgrounds like these:
> 
> ...


Has the charter of rights, or the laws and regulations in place changed in such a way that the campaign above would not have happened in the same way? 

Or were parents just more willing to allow vaccination because they could see the death and despair and didn't have access to, too much information at their fingertips? 

I do remember getting vaccinated in school at the age of six in Edmonton (1980s) and parents were not there. I have no idea if they even knew, but I would assume there was a newsletter that went home or a authorization sheet that had to come back signed.


----------



## Weinie (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> At my level, I would have to assume such an order would be lawful and there would be no use questioning it. I think it is a good question even if the likelihood is less than 1%. The 1% has happened before and it will happen again.
> 
> To me it is a simple scenario, and I don't see much difference in it, than mandating a passport to achieve the same goal. One is a type of cohesion and the other is more forceful and deliberate.
> 
> They both can be utilised to get to the end state that is desired. What alternative is left if the passports don't get us to 90% vaccinated and or people don't do the boosters if they are required and we are stuck in perpetual lockdown?


At your level? WTF are you talking about? 

The scenario that you propose is not a simple scenario, it is beyond fantasy/reality. You need to grossly expand your understanding of this topic


----------



## Weinie (25 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Since March 2020. We've locked them away from their friends, forbid them to touch anything and forced masks on their faces for a virus that's really significantly less dangerous than any other seasonal virus they are exposed to normal. We're sacrificing their mental and social well being to try to save ourselves, and its not even working.


Ummmmmmmmm....... I sorta get the gist of your post.

I am sure that the kids who faced the Blitz were under far more pressure. They, for the most part, turned out OK.

Of more concern to me me is that an Echo, Foxtrot, Golf or name the variant is going to be more virulent/lethal to my kids.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> SSF or SKF (Special K Forces...cereal killers!)  😁


Sippy Kup Special forces? (SKSF?)







I don't have the patience or the crayons to explain it to the tinfoil hat crowd, but fortunately there is a charterpedia! Thanks DoJ!



> Provision​
> 1. The _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_ guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject* only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.*


Charterpedia - Section 1 – Reasonable limits

So yes, the GoC can limit your rights, or infringe on your rights as necessary in pursuit of reasonable goals (like limiting a global health pandemic from killing people). Because people aren't iditots and libertarians don't generally form societies, some version of that is built into pretty much every democratic country's laws

If you want unlimited freedoms, move to a country without a functional government. I don't think there will be a mandatory vaccine requirement in Liberia.


----------



## hattrick72 (25 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> At your level? WTF are you talking about?
> 
> The scenario that you propose is not a simple scenario, it is beyond fantasy/reality. You need to grossly expand your understanding of this topic


I don't see it as being fantasy/reality for the following reasons:

1. Cost for each hospitalised patient is in the range of $40k. We have finite health resources. 
2. Cost of perpetual lockdowns that cause gross government stimulus to sustain our standard of living.
3. The majority of the population is fully vaccinated and are increasingly itching to get back to a better normal. 
4. Not every province is mandating vaccine passports to further encourage their population to get vaccinated. 
5. The vaccine uptake may need to be above 90% to reach herd immunity. 
6. The studies must be completed before they change the age range and could take too long and we are bleeding out too much money with inflation fears. 

The way it is orchestrated could very well be different, no cordon around cities. Perhaps it is local civil authority run only and the military is only called to help if mass riots break out. 

Given what Navy Pete posted, would it be considered reasonable to vaccinate those under age should the head of government den it justified?  
Perhaps the way I brought it up in an overly simplistic form to make it easier to read was the wrong way to go about it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> To me it is a simple scenario, and I don't see much difference in it, than mandating a passport to achieve the same goal. One is a type of cohesion and the other is more forceful and deliberate.



Option 1:  mandate passports, citizens have the choice to (a) get vaccinated or (b) not get vaccinated, be subj to and charged the cost of quick tests very often, restrictions in travel and recreation, employment.   In this option, they get options and choices and get to 'accept the consequences' if they go with option B.

Option 2:  the fed/provincial gov't, law enforcement and Armed Forces install what will be seen as "martial law", surround cities, control movement, then come knocking door-to-door to hold citizens down, including children, and stick needles in them.

Do you *seriously* not see a massive, massive difference in those COAs?

You mentioned Australian military being used.  What they are reportedly doing, and your scenario, are not remotely close in scope/intent.









						Australian Military Joins COVID-19 Lockdown Enforcement in Sydney
					

Minority groups fear soldiers' presence could be traumatizing




					www.voanews.com
				




_About 300 troops have been sent to Australia’s largest city to help overstretched police monitor home quarantine for coronavirus patients, and potentially set up roadblocks. The troops will help the police on a door-to-door search to check if people who have contracted COVID are isolating, police commissioner Mick Fuller told reporters during a press conference.  

Senior officials have said the soldiers will not be armed, and do not have special enforcement authority, but will be assisting the police.









						More military personnel deployed to enforce Sydney Covid restrictions as entire state locks down | CNN
					

Additional Australian military personnel will be deployed to enforce tighter Covid-19 restrictions in the greater Sydney area next week, authorities announced Saturday, as the entire state of New South Wales (NSW) prepares to go under lockdown.




					www.cnn.com
				




More than 500 army personnel are already helping police in the city, which has a population of about 5 million people, including monitoring compliance activities at hotels and airports. An additional 200 personnel will be deployed starting Monday._


----------



## hattrick72 (26 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Option 1:  mandate passports, citizens have the choice to (a) get vaccinated or (b) not get vaccinated, be subj to and charged the cost of quick tests very often, restrictions in travel and recreation, employment.   In this option, they get options and choices and get to 'accept the consequences' if they go with option B.
> 
> Option 2:  the fed/provincial gov't, law enforcement and Armed Forces install what will be seen as "martial law", surround cities, control movement, then come knocking door-to-door to hold citizens down, including children, and stick needles in them.
> 
> ...


Option 1 will not be successful, if the goal is to reach 90%. This 90% threshold is what Ontario wants now. I honestly don't know how long people will put up with paying $240 a COVID test (once we state the gov't will no longer pay for their choice) before they are in the streets protesting aggressively. Add in small pockets of the private sector eliminating workers for their choice. I don't see how that ends peacefully. 

I also don't see governments ending lockdowns, interprovincial border restrictions until we reach above that threshold. 

What other coa would go as number 2 then? Would we accept the populations will, and allow them to go around unvaccinated? 

If coercive policies don't work, what is the next step?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Aug 2021)

Ontario isn't "Canada".  I can tell you, the province I live in, during/after the 3rd wave this spring, the vaccination clinics were going pretty steady.    Here in NS, the plan right now is to move to Phase 5 in the middle of Sept. 

_During phase 5 of Nova Scotia’s reopening plan, we start to move into living with COVID-19. [THIS is the COA we, as a nation, need to move towards IMO....]_

No restrictions for gatherings or social contacts. All gatherings are permitted without any gathering limits.
No social distancing requirement. No mask requirement, including indoor public places and public transportation.
Travel restrictions remain in place. Everyone who travels from outside Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador needs to complete the Safe Check-in Form and may need to self-isolate when they arrive in or return to the province. Self-isolation requirements are based on vaccination status and testing.

Do you see why I am wondering why you're on this 'surround the cities, knock on doors!' stuff?  If Ontario's population starts to riot and go off the deep end...that is when I'd expect the Fed Govt to have discussions with the Prov govt and possibly begin considering invoking the Emergencies Act, which has greater powers than the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.

Again...just my amateur 2 cents.


----------



## Kilted (26 Aug 2021)

I think we will see the vaccination rate go up as restrictions go up against unvaccinated people. I'm sure we might see a few protests from anti-vaxers and the like. But really, the government wouldn't be doing a good job if that didn't happen. Most of the people I know support vaccine passports and would be happy to see anti-vaxers excluded/fired.


----------



## hattrick72 (26 Aug 2021)

Kilted said:


> I think we will see the vaccination rate go up as restrictions go up against unvaccinated people. I'm sure we might see a few protests from anti-vaxers and the like. But really, the government wouldn't be doing a good job if that didn't happen. Most of the people I know support vaccine passports and would be happy to see anti-vaxers excluded/fired.


I don't think vaccine passports are going to increase the numbers significantly. Especially if we have to move the target from 75% to 90%. 

The fact that there are people that can label a person who won't take one vaccine a complete anti-vaxer is scary. This is the ideology that is required to start a door to door campaign. The fact people will be happy a part of the population will lose their livelyhood and become homeless tells me we are a lot closer to doing this for peoples own good than we would admit.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> I don't think vaccine passports are going to increase the numbers significantly. Especially if we have to move the target from 75% to 90%.


That is a great national average, but where I work, only 45% of the population has received one shot, and it’s not from difficulty to obtain vaccines.  Telling people that they need to get vaccinated to participate in society seems like the best way to increase uptake in these areas.


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> I don't think vaccine passports are going to increase the numbers significantly. Especially if we have to move the target from 75% to 90%.
> 
> The fact that there are people that can label a person who won't take one vaccine a complete anti-vaxer is scary. This is the ideology that is required to start a door to door campaign. The fact people will be happy a part of the population will lose their livelyhood and become homeless tells me we are a lot closer to doing this for peoples own good than we would admit.


Eventually the unvaccinated will just die off...

Honestly and maybe this is just my prejudice against the stupid, given the information available, the fact COVID-19 has mutated faster the Influenza - and various other aspects that make it appear to have human assistance in its creation - the variants are getting more "clever" I fail to see the appeal of not getting vaccinated.
   *I'm also a Republican 

Down here the FDA has fully approved the Pfizer vaccine.  The DoD has now ordered it mandatory for all civilian and uniformed personnel.
  It is expected that emergency use approval will be given for the children under 12 around October.



If the variants continue to pop up and with greater infection ability, or god forbid vaccine resistance, then at a certain point I do think the world is going to need to make a decision on those who aren't willing to get vaccinated - what that decision is, will probably be significantly unpleasant to most people.


----------



## hattrick72 (26 Aug 2021)

KevinB said:


> Eventually the unvaccinated will just die off...
> 
> Honestly and maybe this is just my prejudice against the stupid, given the information available, the fact COVID-19 has mutated faster the Influenza - and various other aspects that make it appear to have human assistance in its creation - the variants are getting more "clever" I fail to see the appeal of not getting vaccinated.
> *I'm also a Republican
> ...


Did they approve the current vaccine or did they approve Comirnaty that will be released at a later date without any immunity from liability? 

I see sources that say they are the same vaccine and others that say they are different. This is from the FDA website: 

A: No. There are no data available on the interchangeability of the Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine with other COVID-19 vaccines, including the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Individuals who have received one dose of the Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine should receive a second dose of the Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to complete the vaccination series.

Individuals who have received one dose of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine should receive a second dose of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to complete the vaccination series.

So it looks like they are seperate and interchangable. 

I still don't get the " people who say no to the COVID vaccine are stupid" as much as I don't get the "you are stupid for getting the COVID gene therapy" crowd. To me they both look the same.


----------



## QV (26 Aug 2021)

The Most Vaccine-Hesitant Group? It Might Be Ph.D.s | National Review
					

Those Americans still unvaccinated may not all be ‘less educated, “brainwashed” Trump supporters who don’t want to take the vaccine.’




					www.nationalreview.com


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Aug 2021)

QV said:


> The Most Vaccine-Hesitant Group? It Might Be Ph.D.s | National Review
> 
> 
> Those Americans still unvaccinated may not all be ‘less educated, “brainwashed” Trump supporters who don’t want to take the vaccine.’
> ...


One thing I learned doing a PG was that having a PhD may mean someone is smart in certain (extremely specific) areas, but still dumb overall.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2021)

Never ever confuse education and intelligence, they have very little to do with each other.


----------



## lenaitch (26 Aug 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Never ever confuse education and intelligence, they have very little to do with each other.



Truth.  I have more terminal degrees, doctors, lawyers (plus one doctor+lawyer) in my family than any one family deserves.

The higher your level of academic achievement, you know more and more about less and less.


----------



## Weinie (26 Aug 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Truth.  I have more terminal degrees, doctors, lawyers (plus one doctor+lawyer) in my family than any one family deserves.
> 
> *The higher your level of academic achievement, you know more and more about less and less.*


I agree , but certain people are exempt (Journeyman). Because most PhD's only give a shit about their specialty. Their focus is on their niche, and they could care less about the rest of the world and reality.


----------



## lenaitch (26 Aug 2021)

Honest question:  Part VI of the NDA speaks to 'aid to the civil power' in response "a riot or disturbance of the peace" that is beyond provincial capabilities.  What was the basis for the military's assistance during Covid, forest fires, Toronto snow storms, etc.  Is it simply a request for federal assistance during a declared emergency (and, of course, the military being the only government department with capacity to respond)?


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2021)

Successful viruses are those which are a) highly contagious, and b) not fatal to hosts.  Most unvaccinated people won't die; they'll just be sick for a few days.  Yes, there may be lingering effects, but FFS, I got one of those lingering effects people whinge about (partial loss/alteration of sense of smell) from common flu.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Aug 2021)

Weinie said:


> Ummmmmmmmm....... I sorta get the gist of your post.
> 
> I am sure that the kids who faced the Blitz were under far more pressure. They, for the most part, turned out OK.
> 
> Of more concern to me me is that an Echo, Foxtrot, Golf or name the variant is going to be more virulent/lethal to my kids.


Different generation. We both know children back then had more daily hardships so the Blitz would not have been so much of an extreme hardship. Let's also be fair here, a German 250lb bomb is equally as effective at killing someone regardless of their age. COVID19 not so much, and if we're going to say comparisons to Flu is apples to oranges, Blitz comparisons are apples to rolex watches.


----------



## Weinie (26 Aug 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Honest question:  Part VI of the NDA speaks to 'aid to the civil power' in response "a riot or disturbance of the peace" that is beyond provincial capabilities.  What was the basis for the military's assistance during Covid, forest fires, Toronto snow storms, etc.  Is it simply a request for federal assistance during a declared emergency (and, of course, the military being the only government department with capacity to respond)?


I can only speak to one of those, and it was the Toronto snowstorm. I was an Ops O

I had lived in Toronto, at that time, for 9 years. No winters had seen any significant snowfall since I was posted there. In fact, the Lake Ontario "effect" and the size of the city made sure that very little snow fell or endured.

That changed significantly in 1999. Toronto got hammered snow-wise by three major snow storms in less than two weeks. The city had also recently gotten rid of a vast array of snow removal equipment under amalgamation (hence, a perfect storm).

Consequently, the City of Toronto had no capacity to deal with this.

When the IRU, based out of Petawawa (RCD) arrived, after driving for five hours, the second Capt I spoke to stated "There is more snow in Petawawa'" and my response was along the lines of  "yup, got it."

The MND at the time was from Toronto. Weigh that with what you will.

Having said that, we deployed a number of Bisons at paramedic stations to act as ambulances. They could get through where no other vehicle could act, and they delivered., and saved lives.

The Request for Assistance is actuated by the provincial EMO (Emergency Management Office) when they determine that municipal/provincial resources are not sufficient to deal with a crisis, In this case Toronto was clearly out of their depth.


----------



## mariomike (26 Aug 2021)

lenaitch said:


> What was the basis for the military's assistance during Covid, forest fires, Toronto snow storms, etc.


Mayor Lastman said his biggest concern was that when the snow melted there could be flooding.

The army assisted by cleaning the catch basins and shovelling around fire hydrants.

He also appreciated the capabilities of the Bison armoured vehicles.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Different generation. We both know children back then had more daily hardships so the Blitz would not have been so much of an extreme hardship. Let's also be fair here, a German 250lb bomb is equally as effective at killing someone regardless of their age. COVID19 not so much, and if we're going to say comparisons to Flu is apples to oranges, Blitz comparisons are apples to rolex watches.


Sorry, kids are kids,...it's todays parents who perceive them to be weaker.


----------



## mariomike (26 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Back in the dark ages - as a six-year old in the 1950s - I and millions of my classmates were regularly vaccinated for all kinds of stuff. Never did get smallpox, or polio, or diphtheria or any of the host of things that were killing kids in the thousands ten or twenty years earlier.
> 
> But then we had playgrounds like these:
> 
> ...


My uncle was a policeman in Toronto and told me the swings in children's playgrounds were locked on Sunday's. "Nobody swings on a Sunday."



> Back in the dark ages - as a six-year old in the 1950s - I and millions of my classmates were regularly vaccinated for all kinds of stuff. Never did get smallpox, or polio, or diphtheria or any of the host of things that were killing kids in the thousands ten or twenty years earlier.


----------



## FJAG (26 Aug 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Honest question:  Part VI of the NDA speaks to 'aid to the civil power' in response "a riot or disturbance of the peace" that is beyond provincial capabilities.  What was the basis for the military's assistance during Covid, forest fires, Toronto snow storms, etc.  Is it simply a request for federal assistance during a declared emergency (and, of course, the military being the only government department with capacity to respond)?


As you point out, Aid of the Civil Power (the proper legal term is "of" not "to") deals with riots and disturbances. Note that under the ACP a provincial government can demand assistance from the Feds albeit that the CDS decides the nature and amount of assistance the military will provide.

There are a number of other situations under various pieces of legislation where the federal government can provide assistance to a provincial government or other federal agency in a matter that is generally not a direct military matter.

Under s 273.6 of the NDA the Governor in Council can authorize by order the military to "perform any duty involving public service" if such assistance is in the public interest and the matter cannot be effectively dealt with without military assistance. This is liberally interpreted.

There are several Orders in Council as well that are effected under the Crown Prerogative such as military assistance to the Dept of Fisheries under PC 1970-1512

The MND also has the ability to provide military assistance to other Fed Govt departments by way of a memorandum of understanding such as the one made with the Solicitor General respecting assistance to the RCMP counter drug ops or with Fisheries as to ship and air fisheries surveillance.

Then there's the Federal Emergencies Act which gives the Fed Govt temporary powers to take exceptional measures in a national emergency which is a temporary event seriously endangering the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such a nature or proportions as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with. Disease is considered a public welfare emergency for the provisions of the Act.

I don't have any actual knowledge of what provisions are actually being used at this time and as you can see from the above there are several that might be applicable (such as 273.6 public service duty; the Emergencies Act; and interdepartmental MOUs).

🍻


----------



## Weinie (27 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Since March 2020. We've locked them away from their friends, forbid them to touch anything and forced masks on their faces for a virus that's really significantly less dangerous than any other seasonal virus they are exposed to normal. We're sacrificing their mental and social well being to try to save ourselves, and its not even working.


You were the initiator of the case for current kids. I stated that kids have faced far worse in the past and come out alright. You also stated in your post above, that we (I) am sacrificing my kids mental and social well being by trying to save ourselves..

I have four kids. Their safety and well being is my primary concern. To diminish that concern diminishes you.


----------



## Ludoc (27 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Different generation. We both know children back then had more daily hardships so the Blitz would not have been so much of an extreme hardship. Let's also be fair here, a German 250lb bomb is equally as effective at killing someone regardless of their age. COVID19 not so much, and if we're going to say comparisons to Flu is apples to oranges, Blitz comparisons are apples to rolex watches.



The blitz killed about 43,000 people. 1940s Britain had a population of about 44 million. So it killed about 1 in every 1000 people.

COVID19 has killed 132,000 in Britain. Their current population is about 66 million. So far it has killed about 1 in 500.

So, apples are about twice as likely to kill you as rolex watches.

Disclaimer: these are back of the envelope calculations with lots of rounding and all numbers are sole sourced from Wiki/Google


----------



## mariomike (27 Aug 2021)

> Different generation. We both know children back then had more daily hardships so the Blitz would not have been so much of an extreme hardship. Let's also be fair here, a German 250lb bomb is equally as effective at killing someone regardless of their age. COVID19 not so much, and if we're going to say comparisons to Flu is apples to oranges, Blitz comparisons are apples to rolex watches.





Ludoc said:


> The blitz killed about 43,000 people. 1940s Britain had a population of about 44 million. So it killed about 1 in every 1000 people.
> 
> 
> Ludoc said:
> ...



A lot of study went into the effect of morale bombing on civilians.



> Investigation seems to show that having one's house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than their friends of even relatives killed.
> There seems little doubt that this would break the morale of the people.
> Our calculation assumes, of course, that we really get one-half of our bombs into built up areas.



It's pretty hard to compare targeted civilian morale bombing to an indescriminate infectious disease.

At least if one, or an entire family, survives Covid, they have a home to return to when discharged from hospital.


----------



## lenaitch (27 Aug 2021)

mariomike said:


> My uncle was a policeman in Toronto and told me the swings in children's playgrounds were locked on Sunday's. "Nobody swings on a Sunday."


In stuffy olde Toronto, I suppose reflecting the nation at the time but in the extreme, virtually nothing happened on the Christian sabbath; no movies, little booze, transit on limited service ('Sunday only' stops, usually in front of churches).  I remember being pestered to enforce the demon of Sunday trucking under the Lord's Day Act.  Good times.


FJAG said:


> As you point out, Aid of the Civil Power (the proper legal term is "of" not "to") deals with riots and disturbances. Note that under the ACP a provincial government can demand assistance from the Feds albeit that the CDS decides the nature and amount of assistance the military will provide.
> 
> There are a number of other situations under various pieces of legislation where the federal government can provide assistance to a provincial government or other federal agency in a matter that is generally not a direct military matter.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that (and thanks for the correction).  I was looking for the likes of 273.6 and scrolled down the Act but not up, but, as you say, it seems they could be under a number of authorities.  I was looking for the authority, not the justification.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Aug 2021)

In a related note; saw this good news story; they've trialed some new malaria treatments in combination with the annual vaccines and had a 70% drop in serious cases in kids. They figure this can save 400,000 a year.

Malaria trial shows ‘striking’ 70% reduction in severe illness in children


> Malaria trial shows ‘striking’ 70% reduction in severe illness in children​A study in Burkina Faso and Mali suggests combining anti-malarial drugs and vaccination could reduce deaths and hospitalisations


----------



## dapaterson (27 Aug 2021)

A very sobering discussion about ICUs and ventilators from Reddit...


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/nursing/comments/pbvcdu


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2021)

For those making comparisons, the Blitz was focused on particular areas, particularly greater London.  Figure out the truly affected population and recompute.

No, I don't really mean that.  Don't bother: "random" and "intentional" have different effects on stress, and the comparison is pointless.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2021)

Shame "with a comorbidity or two" didn't make it into the title.


----------



## mariomike (27 Aug 2021)

lenaitch said:


> In stuffy olde Toronto, I suppose reflecting the nation at the time but in the extreme, virtually nothing happened on the Christian sabbath; no movies, little booze, transit on limited service ('Sunday only' stops, usually in front of churches).  I remember being pestered to enforce the demon of Sunday trucking under the Lord's Day Act.  Good times.


Perhaps the theory was if police - the ultimate symbol of adult authority - gained the trust and friendship of young people, when those kids grew into adulthood, they would respect and trust their community police. Same way our family doctor gained our trust as children.

So when my family doctor tells me to take a shot, I roll up my sleeve.



> For those making comparisons, the Blitz was focused on particular areas, particularly greater London.



Whatever the aiming points in London were, over Germany, the calculation was pretty simple.



> One ton of bombs dropped on a built up area demolishes 20-40 dwellings and turns 100-200 people out of house and home.
> If these ( bombs ) are dropped built-up areas they will make 4,000 to 8,000 people homeless.



There was a political, as well as economic ( de-housing factory workers ), reason for this.



> One RCAF squadron was briefed by their Station Commander. He explained that the Nazis had convinced the German people that at the end of WW1 their armed forces had remained still on foreign soil and basically undefeated, and that they, the German forces of WW1, had been betrayed by politicians at home. "He then pointed to the cord running across the map to the city of Dresden, and said, 'There are going to be a lot of people in Dresden tonight who are going to find out that war can be a very nasty thing. Never again will any future German government be able to say that the country was fairly well intact but still defeated.' "
> "Incidentally, it will show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do."


Battlefields in the Air: Canadians in Bomber Command page 152.

The Federal Statistical Office in Wiesbaden, Germany computed after the war that 3.7 million dwellings were destroyed in Germany, including 600,000 in Berlin alone.

It's pretty had to compare what survivors of "the Blitz" went through to Covid survivors, because at least they have a home to return to.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Shame "with a comorbidity or two" didn't make it into the title.


How about this?

Unvaccinated residents 22 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in Ottawa

"the rate of COVID-19 infection among unvaccinated residents was 51.9 cases per 100,000, compared to 2.4 cases per 100,000 among fully vaccinated residents."


----------



## hattrick72 (27 Aug 2021)

Please help me break this down. 

_Of the 122 cases of COVID-19 in Ottawa among vaccine-eligible residents between July 18 and Aug. 21, 80 cases were identified in unvaccinated residents or residents who received a COVID-19 vaccine under 14 days before testing positive.

Twenty-six cases were identified in partially vaccinated residents, while 16 fully vaccinated residents tested positive._

So in the top paragraph it says 42 vaccinated people tested positive. In the bottom paragraph it says 16 fully vaccinated and 26 partially vaccinated tested positive. 

If I add 16 and 26 I get 42. 

In the top paragraph it says 80 patients that were unvaccinated or recieved a shot less than 14 days prior. So even if you are partially vaccinated you don't get that heading until two weeks have passed. 

Why does it need to be this complicated, why can't the add a little transparency and just list the numbers as unvaccinated, one shot<14 days, partially vaccinated, second shot<14 days, and fully vaccinated.....

What if 65 of the 80 cases were people that recieved their shot less than 14 days ago and that is what is giving them a positive test?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Aug 2021)

Antigens you develop do not cause you to test positive for COVID.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2021)

>Unvaccinated residents 22 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in Ottawa

Yes.  So what?  My point is that the people in ICU who don't make it out aren't just victims because they are unvaccinated; they are victims because they are unvaccinated and in poor health.


----------



## hattrick72 (27 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Antigens you develop do not cause you to test positive for COVID.


Regardless of the reason, it would be great to know how many have been vaccinated <14 days prior as a separate statistic. 

Maybe the immune system is weaker and we require self isolation after the shot. Again provided a good portion of the 80 were recently vaccinated


----------



## QV (27 Aug 2021)

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
					

Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.  Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups...




					www.medrxiv.org
				




_This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant._


----------



## mariomike (27 Aug 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Actually not surprised.  No doubt this has been discussed at the Police Association of Ontario level.  What remains to be seen is whether the TPA is in step with the PAOs position or is an outlier - I haven't seen positions from other major associations.


Sounds like some emergency services locals are fighting pretty hard against mask and vaccination mandates in the U.S.








						My fellow firefighters dishonor our oath by skipping COVID vaccine | Opinion
					

Please, someone explain to me why our unions, whose stated primary objective is to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its membership, are fighting so hard against mask and vaccination mandates.




					www.inquirer.com


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Aug 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> >Unvaccinated residents 22 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in Ottawa
> 
> Yes.  So what?  My point is that the people in ICU who don't make it out aren't just victims because they are unvaccinated; they are victims because they are unvaccinated and in poor health.


"poor health"?   Hmmm......fitness buff, Broadway dancer/actor......careful with that brush lad.









						Nick Cordero - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## mariomike (27 Aug 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Nick Cordero - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Says he spent 95 days in hospital before finally passing at age 41. Too long to suffer. Too young to die.


> Cordero was initially diagnosed with pneumonia and admitted to a hospital on March 30, 2020, where he was later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles[18] in critical condition, on a ventilator, and being treated with dialysis and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).[19] On April 18, 2020, his right leg was amputated due to a blood clot as a result of complications from his illness.[20] By May 1, 2020, he had major lung damage including "holes in his lungs" and lung scarring,[21] and had a tracheostomy tube placed.[22][23][24][18]





> On July 5, 2020, after 95 days in the hospital, Cordero died at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles at age 41.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2021)

> "poor health"?



Since I quoted the part about a "comorbidity or two", it shouldn't be hard to figure out.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Aug 2021)

Since 45% of the US population has hypertension or is treated for hypertension, 13% of the US population has diabetes and 43% is obese, I would say that people in “poor health” make up the majority of people in the US. Shouldn’t we attempt to protect the majority of the population?


----------



## hattrick72 (28 Aug 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Since 45% of the US population has hypertension or is treated for hypertension, 13% of the US population has diabetes and 43% is obese, I would say that people in “poor health” make up the majority of people in the US. Shouldn’t we attempt to protect the majority of the population?


I think they made their choice and knew the consequences and should have to pay for any healthcare required out of pocket. Not a cent should come from the public purse for these people that purposefully put themselves at risk. By putting themselves at risk, they put me at risk of not having a hospital bed should I become injured. Heart disease is the leading cause of death and costs the most to our healthcare. 

_Checks notes_ 

Change your question to antivaxers please, so that my rant makes complete sense.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Aug 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> I think they made their choice and knew the consequences and should have to pay for any healthcare required out of pocket. Not a cent should come from the public purse for these people that purposefully put themselves at risk. By putting themselves at risk, they put me at risk of not having a hospital bed should I become injured. Heart disease is the leading cause of death and costs the most to our healthcare.
> 
> _Checks notes_
> 
> Change your question to antivaxers please, so that my rant makes complete sense.


We should just let those people die then?  I don’t mean to be crass but that’d be a significant  portion of our military…

AFAIK, anti-vaxers don’t make up the majority of our population. As much as I disagree with their stance, they should be treated for deceases.  There is no law that say thou shall not be obese or thou shall get the needles.


----------



## FJAG (28 Aug 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> We should just let those people die then?  I don’t mean to be crass but that’d be a significant  portion of our military…
> 
> AFAIK, anti-vaxers don’t make up the majority of our population. As much as I disagree with their stance, they should be treated for deceases.  There is no law that say thou shall not be obese or thou shall get the needles.


I actually agree with your position wholeheartedly.

On the issue of "no law ... thou shall get needles." The Federal and various provincial "Emergencies" Acts are very broad and give the various executives very broad powers to make orders that deal with the emergency. While there is nothing directly about accepting forced medical treatment , there is really nothing against it either (one might have to argue the applicability/non-applicability of S 7 of the Charter to such an order) but more importantly, there are provisions that could greatly curtail movement. Those provisions could easily be tailored to people who either have a disease or alternatively do not have a specified levels of protection against it.

I don't want to get involved in any great debate about whether this is right or wrong or whether, in the circumstances, these provisions should be triggered I just want to point out that there are legal regimes throughout Canada that give extraordinary powers to the various government executives to hand down orders and regulations that can bypass the ordinary legislative process and which may very well pass muster as avoiding Charter issues as "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

🍻


----------



## hattrick72 (28 Aug 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> We should just let those people die then?  I don’t mean to be crass but that’d be a significant  portion of our military…
> 
> AFAIK, anti-vaxers don’t make up the majority of our population. As much as I disagree with their stance, they should be treated for deceases.  There is no law that say thou shall not be obese or thou shall get the needles.


No, I was being mostly sarcastic as I've seen this kind of sentiment towards those who chose not to take the jab. 

I agree with you completely. We need to protect our population and we shouldn't be segregating based on vaccine, smoking, heart disease etc.  

As for the original post, we need better education on the subject. Perhaps a larger roll for phys-ed at every level of education could be a great start.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2021)

> Shouldn’t we attempt to protect the majority of the population?



We should, but not at any cost.  So there are going to be trade-offs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2021)

I find they are going to far, I can see an argument for saying no to unvaccinated people indoors, but banning them from an outdoor patio, that's vindictive and there is little to no science to support significant transmission in outdoor settings. My wife is still having heart issues, which they still are not sure what is causing them, all of the vaccines have warnings about potentiel heart issues, so she is rightly worried about the possible effect and going by her previous history the likelhood of a reaction is high.


----------



## mariomike (28 Aug 2021)

Not a lot enthusiasm from police unions south of the border for vaccine mandates.








						'Hell no': Some police officers and their unions oppose vaccination mandates
					

New York City Police Commissioner Dermot Shea said that he is "100 percent" behind a vaccination requirement and that a mandate should come from the state or federal levels.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## lapinpunki (1 Sep 2021)

I was wondering if you guys can help me figure something out. 
Im very against the vaccination passport (this is not the discussion I want to have). What I am curious about is if we are allowed to go to a protest against it, as a CAF member. I’m not sure if there are regulations against this kind of thing. I don’t want to get charged if caught in a protest.


----------



## brihard (1 Sep 2021)

Reg or reserve?


----------



## lapinpunki (1 Sep 2021)

Reg


----------



## dapaterson (1 Sep 2021)

QR&O chapter 19 is your friend.





__





						QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 19 Conduct And Discipline - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 19 - Conduct And Discipline




					www.canada.ca


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Sep 2021)

If you don't want to get charged, why risk it? 

CF members have the same rights regarding politics as every other Canadian. That being said, according to the government's policy on conflict of interests:

"At all times, public service employees and members of the Canadian Armed Forces have a duty of loyalty towards the Government of Canada."

My advice... if you want a quick trip to the unemployment line, go for it.


----------



## mariomike (1 Sep 2021)

For reference to the discussion,









						Protesting while serving
					

"anti-war, anti-globalization, feminist, and such groups, helping organize, marshal, and participate protests and marches. Overtime, I tone it down and limited to events I care about, as well to focus on other things in life. Even with the other interests and groups which I am still involved in...




					army.ca
				



7 pages.


----------



## lapinpunki (2 Sep 2021)

lapinpunki said:


> Reg





brihard said:


> Reg or reserve?


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2021)

"I am a soldier
And unapt to weep
Or to exclaim upon Fortune's fickleness." Henry VI


----------



## CountDC (3 Sep 2021)

I think the most logical post I have seen in the thread and explains why we need to push vaccines is the one that mentioned the vulnerable chid unable to receive it and at risk.  

Passports I do think are funny and read an interesting take on that I can't recall the wording of but boils down to -  If you did the right thing, got the needle to protect yourself, you have to carry something to prove it.   The person that didn't get it doesn't have to carry anything, goes to the restaurant and sits on the patio.  Can't go to the bar, house party.   Theatre - who really goes there anymore?  Stay home, make popcorn and enjoy the movie for a fraction with friends and family.  Concerts - pay a small fortune to watch someone lip sync to their electronic altered recording?  Stay home, have a party and turn on the radio.    No gym - do anti-vaxxers actually use them?    Who is really getting punished?


----------



## hattrick72 (3 Sep 2021)

CountDC said:


> I think the most logical post I have seen in the thread and explains why we need to push vaccines is the one that mentioned the vulnerable chid unable to receive it and at risk.
> 
> Passports I do think are funny and read an interesting take on that I can't recall the wording of but boils down to -  If you did the right thing, got the needle to protect yourself, you have to carry something to prove it.   The person that didn't get it doesn't have to carry anything, goes to the restaurant and sits on the patio.  Can't go to the bar, house party.   Theatre - who really goes there anymore?  Stay home, make popcorn and enjoy the movie for a fraction with friends and family.  Concerts - pay a small fortune to watch someone lip sync to their electronic altered recording?  Stay home, have a party and turn on the radio.    No gym - do anti-vaxxers actually use them?    Who is really getting punished?


I think it boils down to this. Working and getting an education in our society is an essential requirement. If going forward we require full vaccination or twice weekly testing to participate; I am on board 100%. Ideally in an outbreak when cases per day are above a regions average threshold, every person regardless of vaccination status should test twice a week to ensure we can shut the spread down. 

However, if being vaccinated is the only requirement to partake in the above activities, I completely dressage with that premise. 

As for restaurants, concerts, movies etc. I don't care if unvaccinated individuals can partake in that. I would just like to see it shutdown during an outbreak as described above. 

If we are going to limit education and working to the vaccinated only, then we need to provide a social assistance to the ones that choose to not get vaccinated so they don't go homeless. Without this, then I feel we are infringing on their charter rights.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2021)

Recent court case in the US, where someone who has had Covid, showed that they already have the antibodies and do not need the vaccine


----------



## Maxman1 (8 Sep 2021)

lapinpunki said:


> are allowed to go to a protest against it, *as a CAF member*.



No. You can protest as Joe Blow private citizen, but not as a CAF member. That means not wearing your uniform and not identifying yourself as a member, or you might end up like this guy.


----------



## hattrick72 (8 Oct 2021)

Is the plan to do LWOP for those that are not vaccinated and if they are in the shacks they will be removed? 

If this is the case, are we allowing members to go back to their place of enrollment on or before November 15th to start LWOP? Also, are we then providing a final move after changing their terms of employment?


----------



## Remius (8 Oct 2021)

Have you asked your chain of command?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Oct 2021)

The message from the CDS said a directive for uniformed members would be coming shortly.  I'd wait for that.


----------



## McG (8 Oct 2021)

I find it odd that CAF health services deliver the vaccine to Reg F, but we will be using member self-reporting to track who has been immunized for meeting the federal employment obligation.


----------



## hattrick72 (8 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> Have you asked your chain of command?


I'm currently at school and it won't affect me one way or the other. I'm just curious, what the plan is. If it is 4,000 members unvaccinated and our numbers are closer to 48k than 60k as alluded to in another thread, this seems like it may have a significant impact.

 I have been waiting for the get vaccinated or get out Vs the we are ordering you to get the vaccine, refuse and go to Edmonton decision. 

I also don't have a MM account and am waiting to see how I will be reporting on information they already have access to.


----------



## dangerboy (8 Oct 2021)

McG said:


> I find it odd that CAF health services deliver the vaccine to Reg F, but we will be using member self-reporting to track who has been immunized for meeting the federal employment obligation.


I thought that was very weird also. The only thing I could think of is that however Health Services tracks our shots that system does not easily talk to DWAN or that Health Services said it would be too hard to provide the info.


----------



## hattrick72 (8 Oct 2021)

dangerboy said:


> I thought that was very weird also. The only thing I could think of is that however Health Services tracks our shots that system does not easily talk to DWAN or that Health Services said it would be too hard to provide the info.


Maybe our health information is private and they have no right to it?


----------



## dangerboy (8 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Maybe our health information is private and they have no right to it?


But according to the DWAN message that came out today we have to enter our vaccination status by 29 Oct 21 into Monitor Mass (with more direction to follow) so they are going to know that info.


----------



## Kilted (8 Oct 2021)

dangerboy said:


> But according to the DWAN message that came out today we have to enter our vaccination status by 29 Oct 21 into Monitor Mass (with more direction to follow) so they are going to know that info.


So you're telling me I'm going to get kicked out of the military because no one ever updates my MM and I can't update my own (long story)?


----------



## hattrick72 (8 Oct 2021)

dangerboy said:


> But according to the DWAN message that came out today we have to enter our vaccination status by 29 Oct 21 into Monitor Mass (with more direction to follow) so they are going to know that info.


Yes, that will be the member voluntarily giving up their information. Without this voluntary action they probably need to pass a law or request access for the information through a court so they don't violate hippa or its Canadian equivalent?  

I find the whole situation fascinating. 

My main concern is, are we going to look after those that made the choice to not get vaccinated?  Also，going forward, what will this mean for people like me that are on the fence for getting a booster


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Yes, that will be the member voluntarily giving up their information. Without this voluntary action they probably need to pass a law or request access for the information through a court so they don't violate hippa or its Canadian equivalent?
> 
> I find the whole situation fascinating.
> 
> My main concern is, are we going to look after those that made the choice to not get vaccinated?  Also，going forward, what will this mean for people like me that are on the fence for getting a booster


Look after??  They will be put on leave without pay and eventually released.


----------



## hattrick72 (8 Oct 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Look after??  They will be put on leave without pay and eventually released.


The least the organisation can do is pay to move them. Some members can sell their homes and utilise the equity to pay for rent and living expenses for a few years.


----------



## dangerboy (8 Oct 2021)

We have not seen what the finer details in the  CAF direction are yet, so until it is released everyone is just guessing. It is too early to speculate about release procedures.


----------



## hattrick72 (8 Oct 2021)

dangerboy said:


> We have not seen what the finer details in the  CAF direction are yet, so until it is released everyone is just guessing. It is too early to speculate about release procedures.


I agree. It must be coming in Tuesday because we are almost at the deadline as it is.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> The least the organisation can do is pay to move them.


Should the CAF pay to move someone who is released after refusing to deploy overseas because it's too dangerous?


----------



## MJP (8 Oct 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Should the CAF pay to move someone who is released after refusing to deploy overseas because it's too dangerous?


Moot point, we do anyway for anything less release item 1 and even then under CBI 208.845 we will still move their family and their HG&E.  If I was to wager a guess if we release ppl for no vaccination then it will be 5D or 5F which are honourable releases and all entitlements and benefits as if mbr reach end of TOS are granted.

​


----------



## QV (8 Oct 2021)

This seems like a good way to get around the 6 month release if one was so inclined.


----------



## brihard (8 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> This seems like a good way to get around the 6 month release if one was so inclined.


Depending on the release item. A 5f can really bone you.


----------



## MJP (8 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Depending on the release item. A 5f can really bone you.


It is an honourable release it has almost zero bearing on one's future. It is no different than getting fired from any other job in the grand scheme of things


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2021)

MJP said:


> Moot point, we do anyway for anything less release item 1 and even then under CBI 208.845 we will still move their family and their HG&E.  If I was to wager a guess if we release ppl for no vaccination then it will be 5D or 5F which are honourable releases and all entitlements and benefits as if mbr reach end of TOS are granted.


Damn you're right.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> It is an honourable release it has almost zero bearing on one's future. It is no different than getting fired from any other job in the grand scheme of things



Technically yes. When you punch in 5f release in google the second hit you get off Reddit says "_5f_ is normally issued when you became an administrative burden for the CAF while 2a is issued for wrongful behavior or innapropriate conduct."

Other similar negative associations with 5f releases, might be enough for an employer to look elsewhere (not sure release items would really come up though)


----------



## brihard (8 Oct 2021)

I thought a 5f can be disadvantageous for future federal employment? Was I wrong on that?


----------



## MJP (8 Oct 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Damn you're right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly it would only come up if the mbr themselves brought it up.  



brihard said:


> I thought a 5f can be disadvantageous for future federal employment? Was I wrong on that?


Yup, it is a common myth that it precludes further federal or federally regulated employment for 99.9% of the jobs out there. There may be jobs out there that have the ability to delve deeper into a mbr's past and ascertain their release item and what it means but it would be rare (and unlikely that the mbr would be pursuing those types of jobs anyway).  I only include it because I am not sure myself the depth of background checks for certain jobs.  I know for a fact that several people that have been 5F'd over the years work for federal depts including the RCMP or other sensitive posns within the LEO world


----------



## McG (8 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Maybe our health information is private and they have no right to it?


If privacy were the concern, would we not be better using medical files as or system of record for this? They are much better secured from a privacy perspective than uploading the information on MonitorMASS for every clown to read.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Oct 2021)

McG said:


> If privacy were the concern, would we not be better using medical files as or system of record for this? They are much better secured from a privacy perspective than uploading the information on MonitorMASS for every clown to read.


Agreed however I am sure the argument is that your declaration in MM will be voluntary whereas using med records is not…


----------



## kev994 (8 Oct 2021)

So we pinky-swear in MM and they’re going to audit but not look at med files? Seems suspicious. If the units hadn’t booked all the appointments and didn’t already know the answers it seems like abuse might be tempting.


----------



## Remius (8 Oct 2021)

We sometimes  get contacted by LEO orgs about people that have served that apply to be police officers.  A 5F can be an issue sometimes. It isn’t so much the 5F.  It’s the “why”.   Never seen the issue with PS jobs though but I suspect that some that require more digging into your past could have this come up.


----------



## MJP (8 Oct 2021)

kev994 said:


> So we pinky-swear in MM and they’re going to audit but not look at med files? Seems suspicious. If the units hadn’t booked all the appointments and didn’t already know the answers it seems like abuse might be tempting.


I released early in the vaccination process but Health Svcs was pretty adamant about not releasing individual information to CoC so I would be surprised if they turned around and starting naming names.  In my neck of the woods they even put out a base wide email saying that no one was entitled to an individual's medical information and units needed to stop asking. 

I have no doubt the MM "attestation" is essentially same as the one I just did for the federal PS. Any federal employee can "attest" to being vaccinated but there is at this time no way to verify that attestation. The only real difference I guess is I won't DAG yellow/red *down the road and called to account for a potentially fraudulent attestation

* I am double vaxxed, just see the weakness in the system


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Oct 2021)

kev994 said:


> So we pinky-swear in MM and they’re going to audit but not look at med files? Seems suspicious. If the units hadn’t booked all the appointments and didn’t already know the answers it seems like abuse might be tempting.


When the PM announced the policy, he did say it was a honour system, with consequences for people lying…. How enforceable the system will be is questionable…. We have provincial vaccination passports, and soon-ish a federal one.  I wouldn’t be surprised the government will require the use of that passport as the proof of vaccination…


----------



## Remius (8 Oct 2021)

Access to The messes will be interesting…


----------



## brihard (8 Oct 2021)

Trust now, verify later. This isn’t rocket surgery. CAF is already set up to track medical data points. Relatively speaking this is child’s play.


----------



## Kilted (9 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> Access to The messes will be interesting…


Or anywhere in public that requires a passport that you might run into your chain of command.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> Access to The messes will be interesting…


How so?   Mess activities are considered non-essential and thus require double vaccination proof.   Mess exec ask members for their passports or CAF vax cards - pretty simple.  If you don’t want to show proof - you don’t attend mess activities.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

Equally troubling in this thread is those people who are stating they don’t have MM access or it doesn’t work for them.  I heavily recommend you get that figured out ASAP, PaCE is here and everyone should have filled out their JD and MAP already.   Less than a week until your first debrief session.


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> How so?   Mess activities are considered non-essential and thus require double vaccination proof.   Mess exec ask members for their passports or CAF vax cards - pretty simple.  If you don’t want to show proof - you don’t attend mess activities.


That wasn’t my point.  Messes will require proof of vaccination. Actual work locations will not.   In some situations it won’t be hard to figure out who might not be vaccinated.


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Equally troubling in this thread is those people who are stating they don’t have MM access or it doesn’t work for them.  I heavily recommend you get that figured out ASAP, PaCE is here and everyone should have filled out their JD and MAP already.   Less than a week until your first debrief session.


You clearly have never worked in a PRes unit.


----------



## hattrick72 (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Equally troubling in this thread is those people who are stating they don’t have MM access or it doesn’t work for them.  I heavily recommend you get that figured out ASAP, PaCE is here and everyone should have filled out their JD and MAP already.   Less than a week until your first debrief session.


ATL/BTL don't participate in PDR or PER process, unless this has changed under PACE?


----------



## hattrick72 (9 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> That wasn’t my point.  Messes will require proof of vaccination. Actual work locations will not.   In some situations it won’t be hard to figure out who might not be vaccinated.


I'm fully vaccinated and my wife is fully vaccinated, we are not getting our passports for anything on the civilian side. Any activity that requires one we will not partake in. The biggest reason for this is our kids will not be getting the vaccine until 2027 at the earliest. Once this is approved for kids, we will lose access to all those services anyways. 

However, I will fill out the attestation and when it is time to fly for work purposes, I will have my "passport" ready for that. Mess dinners will probably be similar, unless the attestation is good enough for attendance. 

So, who is at the mess and gym may not be the best indicator of who doesn't have it for sure.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> That wasn’t my point.  Messes will require proof of vaccination. Actual work locations will not.   In some situations it won’t be hard to figure out who might not be vaccinated.


DND considers the messes and gyms as part of the workplace for harassment policy purposes, ergo they cannot ask for vaccine status. Only people that get asked are non-DND civilian associates.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> You clearly have never worked in a PRes unit.


No kidding. Outside of BOR/ HQ offices, my unit had three computers for the rifle company. Nobody below section 2ic would have any reason to go on one or even have a DWAN account.


----------



## Kilted (9 Oct 2021)

McG said:


> If privacy were the concern, would we not be better using medical files as or system of record for this? They are much better secured from a privacy perspective than uploading the information on MonitorMASS for every clown to read.


And it's not like everyone in the unit will find out anyways.  I've never had anything medical actually kept confidential.  Between having to explain an injury to everyone of a higher rank who I came in contact with and everyone else who happened to be standing there at the time, there is no way to keep it secret.  Which isn't surprising considering the amount of information about other people.  Considering the fact that people are still accused of faking injuries and have to justify their medical limitations to every Tom, Dick, and Harry I don't think that keeping something like a vaccination confidential is a realistic expectation.


----------



## Kilted (9 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> No kidding. Outside of BOR/ HQ offices, my unit had three computers for the rifle company. Nobody below section 2ic would have any reason to go on one or even have a DWAN account.


And those three computers belong to three specific people and no one else is allowed to use them, or they are behind locked doors no one has access to. Then there are people being told that they don't need a DWAN account because who ever is responsible doesn't want to do the work involved.


----------



## hattrick72 (9 Oct 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Should the CAF pay to move someone who is released after refusing to deploy overseas because it's too dangerous?





PuckChaser said:


> DND considers the messes and gyms as part of the workplace for harassment policy purposes, ergo they cannot ask for vaccine status. Only people that get asked are non-DND civilian associates.


I believe bases are limiting access to the gym to vaccinated only.


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> I believe bases are limiting access to the gym to vaccinated only.


If that is happening, then it is local decision.  Other bases have declared the gym an essential service to CAF members and therefore allow access without proof.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> ATL/BTL don't participate in PDR or PER process, unless this has changed under PACE?


Everybody in the CAF will have some interaction under PaCE - as briefed by DMCPG on Wednesday.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> You clearly have never worked in a PRes unit.


I have, I’m aware of the scarcity of DWAN terminals.  This is a leadership challenge that will need to be overcome.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> DND considers the messes and gyms as part of the workplace for harassment policy purposes, ergo they cannot ask for vaccine status. Only people that get asked are non-DND civilian associates.


There is zero direction that states that.  

The CAF follows local provincial health orders - just like how we follow liquor license laws.   If you attend the Mess in its capacity as a drinking establishment, you show your proof of vaccination.   There’s no privacy laws being impacted here, you are aware that if you walk in the Mess you will be asked for proof - if you don’t want to show proof, you don’t walk in the Mess.    I don’t get why this is such a complicated topic.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2021)

Thanks for the"shut up and do what you're told" answer, super helpful. Back to reality, workplaces are exempt vaccination proof requirements in Ontario. You're suggesting we've created Shrondingers Mess where they're both simultaneously a workplace for harassment purposes but not a workplace for vaccine mandates. If you cant see how stupid that sounds, I can't help you any further.


----------



## hattrick72 (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Everybody in the CAF will have some interaction under PaCE - as briefed by DMCPG on Wednesday.


Thank you for the heads up, I'll be waiting for direction to come down to me through email as it filters through the different chains. 

Hopefully I still get a pay cheque come November 15th if some units are more latent than others.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2021)

The latest email I had regarding mess's on my base and proof of vaccination stated DND military and civilian members are not required to show proof of vaccination for official and work related events (I recently attended a mess event and was not required to show proof of vaccination). 

Email goes on to state anyone going to the mess as a part of a private event such as a wedding had to show proof of vaccination, whether they were civilian or military.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> ATL/BTL don't participate in PDR or PER process, unless this has changed under PACE?


ATL do participate in PERs; you get an exemption for the relevant time period if it runs over the majority of the period or a PER for the portion of the reporting period you aren't on the ATL. BTL pers may not get a PER due to rank, but you are still supposed to keep div notes and give feedback via PDR if they are doing OJT; and otherwise they are covered under course reports.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Thanks for the"shut up and do what you're told" answer, super helpful. Back to reality, workplaces are exempt vaccination proof requirements in Ontario. You're suggesting we've created Shrondingers Mess where they're both simultaneously a workplace for harassment purposes but not a workplace for vaccine mandates. If you cant see how stupid that sounds, I can't help you any further.



But that’s nonetheless the fact set. Messes get their liquor licences provincially; while they are part of the military’s physical infrastructure, they still have to follow provincial laws around things like alcohol service.

Besides that, it’s entirely reasonable for the military to mandate proof of vaccines to enter a mess for social purposes. It’s a nonessential activity, it’s a congregate setting with risk of virus spread, and such virus spread is an operational liability. CAF already knows that everyone serving has a range of other vaccines that fulfil the same purpose for other viruses. Because Covid, and vaccines therefor, are new on the scene, novel mechanisms are required to ensure that same protection.

CAF members are free to simply not go to the mess on their own time, same as they’re free to not go to Boston Pizza. But the simple reality is that Covid vaccination will now be a basic employment requirement. CAF members can choose to continue to serve with CAF or not. Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequences.


----------



## hattrick72 (9 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> ATL do participate in PERs; you get an exemption for the relevant time period if it runs over the majority of the period or a PER for the portion of the reporting period you aren't on the ATL. BTL pers may not get a PER due to rank, but you are still supposed to keep div notes and give feedback via PDR if they are doing OJT; and otherwise they are covered under course reports.


That makes sense, I don't have any experience with ATL. BTL members that have come to work under me for OJT were given PDR. However, I didn't think BTL section would give PDR. 

I'm a good 6-7 years away from a per now, so I wasn't even writing about PACE until I had summer employment.


----------



## kev994 (9 Oct 2021)

McG said:


> If that is happening, then it is local decision.  Other bases have declared the gym an essential service to CAF members and therefore allow access without proof.


In Trenton you need proof of vaccination for the gym except if doing a force test, for the mess and dining hall except for mess dinner (don’t shoot the messenger on that last one, that’s just what it says).


----------



## kev994 (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Equally troubling in this thread is those people who are stating they don’t have MM access or it doesn’t work for them.  I heavily recommend you get that figured out ASAP, PaCE is here and everyone should have filled out their JD and MAP already.   Less than a week until your first debrief session.


I didn’t see a DWAN station the entire time I was OUTCAN, go figure the USCG isn’t set up for access to a foreign country’s intranet.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2021)

If only we had a mechanism for someone to make one set of rules that apply to every building, and every employee.


----------



## kev994 (9 Oct 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> If only we had a mechanism for someone to make one set of rules that apply to every building, and every employee.


Then every place ‘interprets it’ into whatever they  want it to say anyway…


----------



## Zoomie (9 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Thanks for the"shut up and do what you're told" answer, super helpful. Back to reality, workplaces are exempt vaccination proof requirements in Ontario. You're suggesting we've created Shrondingers Mess where they're both simultaneously a workplace for harassment purposes but not a workplace for vaccine mandates. If you cant see how stupid that sounds, I can't help you any further.


I think Brihard already summed this up quite succinctly - but here’s my thoughts (definitely not telling you to shut up and obey).

The Mess is sometimes used for official CAF functions outside of the private military club setting - like H&A ceremonies or Working Ground, under those circumstances you would not require proof of vaccination - for the reasons that  Brihard mentioned.   If the bar is open and liquor is flowing, it now falls under the auspices of being a “non-essential activity” which, legislated under provincial health mandate, requires proof of vaccination of everyone with a heartbeat.   This is the only way that local commanders are allowing Messes to be “open” and serve alcohol.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Oct 2021)

So, PMC enters the mess every day, Monday to Friday to do PMC stuff. No vacc check. PMC goes to a wedding reception at the mess on a Saturday and is required to show vacc proof. Monday, back to PMC stuff, no check. Am I reading that correctly? Same for bar staff?


----------



## Kilted (9 Oct 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> So, PMC enters the mess every day, Monday to Friday to do PMC stuff. No vacc check. PMC goes to a wedding reception at the mess on a Saturday and is required to show vacc proof. Monday, back to PMC stuff, no check. Am I reading that correctly? Same for bar staff?


They are the PMC, I'm sure that they can arrive before anyone starts checking. In fact they are probably responsible to delegate the vaccine checking person.


----------



## brihard (9 Oct 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> So, PMC enters the mess every day, Monday to Friday to do PMC stuff. No vacc check. PMC goes to a wedding reception at the mess on a Saturday and is required to show vacc proof. Monday, back to PMC stuff, no check. Am I reading that correctly? Same for bar staff?


May vary by province. I know Ontario doesn’t require vaccines for the staff at establishments (which is weird- thanks Doug Ford), but I can’t speak to others.

There is of course a difference between a PMC attending to work in his or her office, versus a patron attending to eat and drink and socialize.

Now, with the new federal mandate, my understanding is anyone working on federal property will need to be vaccinated. Not sure how that would apply to non-CAF (NPF?) mess staff, but likely they will need to be as per of the federal effort to achieve fully vaccinated workplaces. And, of everything in the federal sphere, CAF is the easiest for which to justify this due to its unique operational imperatives.


----------



## lenaitch (9 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> May vary by province. I know Ontario doesn’t require vaccines for the staff at establishments (which is weird- thanks Doug Ford), but I can’t speak to others.
> 
> There is of course a difference between a PMC attending to work in his or her office, versus a patron attending to eat and drink and socialize.
> 
> Now, with the new federal mandate, my understanding is anyone working on federal property will need to be vaccinated. Not sure how that would apply to non-CAF (NPF?) mess staff, but likely they will need to be as per of the federal effort to achieve fully vaccinated workplaces. And, of everything in the federal sphere, CAF is the easiest for which to justify this due to its unique operational imperatives.



NPF employees are federal public servants, so captured by the government directive.  I suppose in Ontario, if one drops into the Canex to buy a coffee they don't have to show proof.


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2021)

NPF employees are not public servants and not employed by the government. They are employed by NPF.


----------



## Weinie (9 Oct 2021)

McG said:


> NPF employees are not public servants and not employed by the government. They are employed by NPF.


But they do have a union, who, wisely, have not weighed in yet full bore.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2021)

NPF employees are non-core public servants - considered a separate agency, per schedule V of the FAA.  Financial Administration Act


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> This is the only way that local commanders are allowing Messes to be “open” and serve alcohol.


I'm fairly certain Grn Petawawa would have gotten JAG advice before clarifying thier policy is only non-DND civilians are required to prove vaccination. The only thing military members are asked for is thier ID if they're in civvies.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> If the bar is open and liquor is flowing, it now falls under the auspices of being a “non-essential activity” which, legislated under provincial health mandate, requires proof of vaccination of everyone with a heartbeat.   This is the only way that local commanders are allowing Messes to be “open” and serve alcohol.



I'm not sure this is the case - it isn't happening in the base I am on.


----------



## lenaitch (9 Oct 2021)

McG said:


> NPF employees are not public servants and not employed by the government. They are employed by NPF.


Just going off this:

_"Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces are public servants who work to take care of CAF members, veterans, and their families. They deliver morale and welfare services such as health, fitness and recreational programs as well as shopping, retail, and financial services."_​





						Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces, and the Canadian Forces Morale and Welfare Services - Canada.ca
					

Information for current and former employees of the Staff of the Non-Public Funds and their families




					www.canada.ca
				




then this:

_Employment in the federal public service must be with a department or branch that forms part of the public service. It also includes employment in any of the boards, commissions or agencies that form part of the public service for pension purposes._​
_Any department which is (or was during its lifetime) presided over by a Minister of the Crown._






						Employment in the Federal Public Service - Eligibility to Contribute - Employer Support Services - Government of Canada Pension Centre - Pension Services - Pay and Pension Services for Government Employees - PWGSC
					

Describes the different types of employment in the federal public service and when a person is considered to be employed in the public service.




					www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
				




then this:

*3*_ The Minister of National Defence may appoint such persons as he deems proper to the Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces._​





						Non-Public Funds Staff Regulations
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca


----------



## Zoomie (10 Oct 2021)

I suspect a lot of our differences are due to Provincial health orders.  Comox is in BC - we follow what Bonnie Henry dictates.    As a Mess, we have determined that if the bar taps are open, we fall under the “non-essential” activity and thus everyone must be vaccinated - we don’t distinguish between CAF, NPF, PSP or civilian since the PHO doesn’t care.   Local commanders provide their own risk acceptance strategies and come up with a plan that they are happy with, this is what Comox does, YMMV.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2021)

If I read this right, Freeland says the CAF doesn't need the mandatory vaccines.









						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


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> If I read this right, Freeland says the CAF doesn't need the mandatory vaccines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not precisely. The policy that was published Wednesday is a TBS policy. It does not apply itself to CAF. CAF will have its own vaccine mandate, the PM in his press conference made reference to something coming from the CDS later.

There’s also nothing in the policy to substantiate the claim of exemptions for things like call centre operators, if they’re public servants. If that’s contracted out, then potentially, yeah.

As for the attestation versus proof thing- the public service isn’t set up to collect or handle medical information on all employees the way that CAF or RCMP are. I’m sure they’ll come up with something, but for now the attestation system lets them roll this out fast- trust now, verify later. Presumably anyone caught lying in a subsequent audit once they figure out next steps will face discipline up to and including termination.


----------



## Misses muffett (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Who is talking about people being assaulted? I’ve seen nobody advocating for forcible, physically coerced vaccination. Careful there.


It is an assault to inject someone without consent, if the consent is coerced via threatening your job then...


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> It is an assault to inject someone without consent, if the consent is coerced via threatening your job then...


Yeah, no. That is not assault. No nurse is putting a needle in your arm without you allowing it. If you don’t like that continued military service means being innoculated against a bunch of stuff, and that one more thing has been added to that list, you are free to make that choice not to get the vaccine. If you decide that, in the balance, getting the vaccine is worth your job security, then it’s not assault when you receive it. You’ll find “assault” defined in section 265 of the Criminal Code if you’re continuing to struggle with this.


----------



## Misses muffett (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Yeah, no. That is not assault. No nurse is putting a needle in your arm without you allowing it. If you don’t like that continued military service means being innoculated against a bunch of stuff, and that one more thing has been added to that list, you are free to make that choice not to get the vaccine. If you decide that, in the balance, getting the vaccine is worth your job security, then it’s not assault when you receive it. You’ll find “assault” defined in section 265 of the Criminal Code if you’re continuing to struggle with this.


Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent. In cases of sexual assault someone who is a subordinate cannot consent. Assault is assault regardless of the subtype. Furthermore, and most importantly an assault includes the use of indirect force, so being at arms length does not mean you are not culpable.


----------



## lenaitch (11 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent. In cases of sexual assault someone who is a subordinate cannot consent. Assault is assault regardless of the subtype. Furthermore, and most importantly an assault includes the use of indirect force, so being at arms length does not mean you are not culpable.



"Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent".   Yes it does, and it's gone on since the day you were born; first by your parents and then by your society.  Following rules is a component of living in a civil society.  You are drawing a false equivalency between imposing rules and any reasonable definition of 'assault'.  Is an employer's requirement to show up to work on time five days a week as a condition of getting a paycheque, or a rule that requires you to drive on a particular side of the road, an 'assault' simply because you have decided you'd rather not?

Is this new rule of social engagement reasonable?  I'm not aware that it has been tested by any level of competent authority (that apparently nasty word again) yet, but all professional and general legal opinions I have seen say it is.  Did the rules change mid-stream?  Yes they did.  So did the requirement to wear seat belts.  It's called social evolution.

 If it your view that you should have absolute personal sovereignty yet still fully and equally function within society, then I suppose there is not much others can say to you.  Nobody is proposing to assault you - indirectly or otherwise.  You have the absolute freedom to choose (consent) - and live with that choice.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent. In cases of sexual assault someone who is a subordinate cannot consent. Assault is assault regardless of the subtype. Furthermore, and most importantly an assault includes the use of indirect force, so being at arms length does not mean you are not culpable.



No, you have the full ability to consent to the vaccine or not. There will simply be employment consequences if you don’t. You’re free to seek other work elsewhere. Consent does not need to be consequence-free to count. Nobody is going to physically restrain you and force you to take a vaccine, just like how, as a reservist, nobody forced you to attend class A training. There were simply administrative consequences to your employment if you don’t show up.

Anyway, as I said: this is not ‘assault’. Not even close. What it is is a decision (apparently difficult for some) borne of once in a century necessity in the form of a global public health crisis. But the choice remains yours.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Oct 2021)

NDA Sect 126 should help some people make the decision.

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.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2021)

Community orders can force someone to get injections/medication or lose their freedom (jail/committed) if I'm not mistaken. 

Maybe people who refuse the vaccine will get hit with some kind of community order in the future.

At the very least someone who isn't vaccinated without medical support will have a very hard time doing anything outside of their house.


We're seeing issues with businesses not accepting CAF member's vaccine books as proof of vaccination since its federal and not the provincial certification. The CAF told members not to worry, our needle books would be good enough. Guess the CAF forgot to tell everyone else.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Oct 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> NDA Sect 126 should help some people make the decision.
> 
> 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 (11 Oct 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> NDA Sect 126 should help some people make the decision.
> 
> 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.


Have any CAF members actually been ordered by their chains of command to get vaccinated, or have they simply been ordered to attest to their status regarding the voluntary decision to get vaccinated? Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that across the entire federal landscape this will be an administrative matter, not a disciplinary one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Have any CAF members actually been ordered by their chains of command to get vaccinated, or have they simply been ordered to attest to their status regarding the voluntary decision to get vaccinated? Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that across the entire federal landscape this will be an administrative matter, not a disciplinary one.


So far, nothing other than a warning order, at least at my unit.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So far, nothing other than a warning order, at least at my unit.


What's it warning of? An impending order to get vaccinated, or simply the attestation system? The only was S.126 applies would be if the chain of command orders members specifically to get vaccinated. I suspect that CAF is very specifically avoiding invocation of S.126.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> What's it warning of? An impending order to get vaccinated, or simply the attestation system? The only was S.126 applies would be if the chain of command orders members specifically to get vaccinated. I suspect that CAF is very specifically avoiding invocation of S.126.


Oh, sorry- an attestation in MM.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2021)

This may have been posted already but here goes:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/anthrax-acquittal-overturned-on-appeal-1.316712
		


Basically Kipling  was found not guilty but it was appealed and he could have been prosecuted again. The CAF dropped the charges.

It hinges, IMO (I am not a lawyer FYI ) on whether the vaccine is safe. CAF members could be ordered to take the vaxx if it is found safe.

My apologies if this has been posted.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> This may have been posted already but here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, CAF didn't want to push the issue and see it through. There's no particularly useful precedent out of that one.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Yeah, CAF didn't want to push the issue and see it through. There's no particularly useful precedent out of that one.


Not one for sure. 

In my pea brain if you're in the CAF you get vaccinated. Just my opinion.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Have any CAF members actually been ordered by their chains of command to get vaccinated, or have they simply been ordered to attest to their status regarding the voluntary decision to get vaccinated? Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that across the entire federal landscape this will be an administrative matter, not a disciplinary one.


We were told to standby and wait for direction, but the attestation is just a tracking issue because of the PRO B (medical) nature of the med docs. So the order will probably be to get a vaccine, with the local tracking done via attestations to get it done quickly, and probably some kind of follow up from the medical folks in slow time for people that aren't vaccinated in their docs.

So lying on that would probably be an additional charge, if they do come down with a vaccination order. Either way, sounds like a quick route to an AR and release. Alternately, folks can choose not to get vaccinated and then go the same release route for not meeting H&S related conditions of employment.

It's a pretty reasonable order though; people are focusing a lot on the death rate and ignoring the long term affects. I got sick in May 2020, and while I never was hospitalized or anything, still having some lingering issues that would make me non-deployable (and probably couldn't pass the FORCE test right now). That's at about 25% of COVID cases have something like that, so even if we were at 100% remar, that could wipe out entire units worth of troops, and severely impact operations. Given that the vaccines have all passed all kinds of studies and they have pretty good OQE on it's safety, it's pretty easy to make the argument that being vaccinated is critical to the CAF to be able to remain effective. Don't know anyone who is being vocal about not getting vaccinated, and from talking to friends, have only heard of one person raising it as an issue, which probably roughly covers hundreds of people when you look at 2nd and 3rd degrees of separation, so think the numbers lost to anti-vaxxers is much lower than potential losses from people rendered non-employable from COVID.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2021)

Well said Navy Pete.


----------



## Happy Guy (11 Oct 2021)

I was wondering and I'm not a lawyer.   If you were unvaccinated because you refused to do so, you were an asymptomatic carrier (like Typhoid Mary) and you inflected someone and who died because of you, can you be charged under civil law?


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

Happy Guy said:


> I was wondering and I'm not a lawyer.   If you were unvaccinated because you refused to do so, you were an asymptomatic carrier (like Typhoid Mary) and you inflected someone and who died because of you, can you be charged under civil law?


Really hard to prove without any doubt that carrier A have it to them and not carrier (B-Z) that could've had it and were never tested. 

Right now, if you are vaccinated and don't show symptoms, you don't get tested. If the vaccine works, there will be a lot of carriers without symptoms. Too hard to prove in my opinion.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

Happy Guy said:


> I was wondering and I'm not a lawyer.   If you were unvaccinated because you refused to do so, you were an asymptomatic carrier (like Typhoid Mary) and you inflected someone and who died because of you, can you be charged under civil law?


Charged with an offense? No. There would be no intent if you don’t know you’re infected. If, conceivably, you DID know and sought to deliberately infect others, then yes, definitely. There’s precedent for that with HIV.


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Yeah, no. That is not assault. No nurse is putting a needle in your arm without you allowing it. If you don’t like that continued military service means being innoculated against a bunch of stuff, and that one more thing has been added to that list, you are free to make that choice not to get the vaccine. If you decide that, in the balance, getting the vaccine is worth your job security, then it’s not assault when you receive it. You’ll find “assault” defined in section 265 of the Criminal Code if you’re continuing to struggle with this.


Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or live the next 1-x years in camp? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or live the next 1-x years in camp? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.


No, that might be other stuff.

Edited from my original reply- sorry, thought I was answering someone else.


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> No, that might be other stuff.
> 
> Edited from my original reply- sorry, thought I was answering someone else.


No worries, I didn't see the other post. 

What would the other stuff be?

I know the US wants 98% inoculation, if we wanted the same and could only reach 95% or 97% I think we either go into brutal lockdowns as a whole, or they track or lock the remaining 1+million people.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> No worries, I didn't see the other post.
> 
> What would the other stuff be?
> 
> I know the US wants 98% inoculation, if we wanted the same and could only reach 95% or 97% I think we either go into brutal lockdowns as a whole, or they track or lock the remaining 1+million people.


Not a chance. The population wouldn’t stand for it, and who do you imagine enforcing that? The lockdowns and assorted measures are justified by and only remain justified by ongoing threats to the capacity of the healthcare system. The fourth wave is waning, and there’s likely too little vulnerable population for it to surge again unless it mutates to genuinely defeat vaccines. Coming out of this one, with vaccine rates where they are, we should be good.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or *live the next 1-x years in camp*? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.



What do you mean by " live in camp"?  Since there is little political upside (and a lot of downside) to establishing camps in which to "concentrate" the unvaccinated population, I'm assuming that you are making reference to a possibility of military members being restricted to living in military facilities until the pandemic is over.  That's not how the world, or the military, works.  Most military pers do not "live in camp"; they live in their own homes, or rented accommodation with their spouses, significant others, children, pets and toys.  The likely choice is get the vaccination or be released.  The path to release may include a charge under the CSD (unlikely), a period of LWOP or ED&T and the processing of release procedures for those individuals whose refusal to meet a bona fide requirement for continued service seriously impairs their usefulness to or imposes an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces (i.e. 5F release).


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Not a chance. The population wouldn’t stand for it, and who do you imagine enforcing that? The lockdowns and assorted measures are justified by and only remain justified by ongoing threats to the capacity of the healthcare system. The fourth wave is waning, and there’s likely too little vulnerable population for it to surge again unless it mutates to genuinely defeat vaccines. Coming out of this one, with vaccine rates where they are, we should be good.


They have enforced every lockdown with success so far without any opposition for 18 months. 

By brutal lockdown, I mean, you can't visit anyone outside your household for 2 months at a time, can't leave your local area without an essential reason during those two months.  Much of the same things we have seen just throttled up a bit more until we get a higher vaccination rate.  

I hope you are right, it would be nice if this was the last lockdown as this is the last wave to affect healthcare stability.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

No, people and businesses have simply gone along with it. True enforcement in the sense of actual governmental authorities (police and public health) has been minimal.

I've got family living in western Australia. They have had enforcement. Us? Not so much.


----------



## Remius (11 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> They have enforced every lockdown with success so far without any opposition for 18 months.
> 
> By brutal lockdown, I mean, you can't visit anyone outside your household for 2 months at a time, can't leave your local area without an essential reason during those two months.  Much of the same things we have seen just throttled up a bit more until we get a higher vaccination rate.
> 
> I hope you are right, it would be nice if this was the last lockdown as this is the last wave to affect healthcare stability.


Something similar could happen in the PS.  Placed on LWOP for one year then go on priority list for another and then get the boot.  Assuming it lasts that long.  I suspect we’ll be seing a lot of people take “stress leave” to avoid any kind of penalty.


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> What do you mean by " live in camp"?  Since there is little political upside (and a lot of downside) to establishing camps in which to "concentrate" the unvaccinated population, I'm assuming that you are making reference to a possibility of military members being restricted to living in military facilities until the pandemic is over.  That's not how the world, or the military, works.  Most military pers do not "live in camp"; they live in their own homes, or rented accommodation with their spouses, significant others, children, pets and toys.  The likely choice is get the vaccination or be released.  The path to release may include a charge under the CSD (unlikely), a period of LWOP or ED&T and the processing of release procedures for those individuals whose refusal to meet a bona fide requirement for continued service seriously impairs their usefulness to or imposes an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces (i.e. 5F release).


No, I mean society as a whole. Canada doesn't have the infrastructure to place population in camps. The US does have safe facilities to isolate the unactivated from the vaccinated, if they chose to go that route. 

I'm not saying it is likely, but if that is the choice: get vaccinated or live in camp X for 1-3 years while we rid the virus from our population. Is that assault


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> No, people and businesses have simply gone along with it. True enforcement in the sense of actual governmental authorities (police and public health) has been minimal.
> 
> I've got family living in western Australia. They have had enforcement. Us? Not so much.


If business and people didn't go along with it do you think our collective response would be different than Australia's?


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> Something similar could happen in the PS.  Placed on LWOP for one year then go on priority list for another and then get the boot.  Assuming it lasts that long.  I suspect we’ll be seing a lot of people take “stress leave” to avoid any kind of penalty.


STI is going to be a mechanism people go for. In my opinion anyway


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> No, I mean society as a whole. Canada doesn't have the infrastructure to place population in camps. The US does have safe facilities to isolate the unactivated from the vaccinated, if they chose to go that route.
> 
> I'm not saying it is likely, but if that is the choice: get vaccinated or live in camp X for 1-3 years while we rid the virus from our population. Is that assault


No, that's not what assault is under our laws.

I see precisely zero chance of what you envision happening. There's no arrest and detention authority for anything like that, and legislature nor courts would go along with creating or upholding one. Nor would Canadian police enforce such a thing.

As for 'stress leave' (there's no such thing- it's sick leave)- remains to be seen. The public service will be seeing in the coming weeks how that plays out, and if members on sick leave will still be required to attest. I'm personally dealing with at least one such case and don't yet have clarification on how this will go, nor do the very senior levels of organizational management that I have access to ask these things.


----------



## hattrick72 (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> No, that's not what assault is under our laws.
> 
> I see precisely zero chance of what you envision happening. There's no arrest and detention authority for anything like that, and legislature nor courts would go along with creating or upholding one. Nor would Canadian police enforce such a thing.
> 
> As for 'stress leave' (there's no such thing- it's sick leave)- remains to be seen. The public service will be seeing in the coming weeks how that plays out, and if members on sick leave will still be required to attest. I'm personally dealing with at least one such case and don't yet have clarification on how this will go, nor do the very senior levels of organizational management that I have access to ask these things.


I don't think we will ever see it either, but we are at the stage where we say get a vaccine or you can't work or make a living within our society. To me that is get the vaccine or live on the streets. I find this repulsive, but it seems many in society do not. For the military, the get the vaccine or release is viable IMO, but shouldn't translate into overall society. 

I really don't know how to gauge the distance between go hungry in the streets, it is your choice. To, if you don't get the vaccine we will place you in a facility and feed you and keep everyone safe. It keeps you from starving and others from getting sick. 

As for STI, I'm not saying stress leave. I'm saying short term illness, where insurance pays you 75% of your wage until you go on long term disability. Workplace stress is one form people can use, PTSD from a traumatic situation at work is another. 

I'm not sure if DND employees have third same mechanism, I know they can hold their position for up to two years while on sick leave. Outside of providing doctors notes, I'm not sure we are able to force them to do anything other than provide their doctors note to continue leave.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> No, that's not what assault is under our laws.
> 
> I see precisely zero chance of what you envision happening. There's no arrest and detention authority for anything like that, and legislature nor courts would go along with creating or upholding one. Nor would Canadian police enforce such a thing.
> 
> As for 'stress leave' (there's no such thing- it's sick leave)- remains to be seen. The public service will be seeing in the coming weeks how that plays out, and if members on sick leave will still be required to attest. I'm personally dealing with at least one such case and don't yet have clarification on how this will go, nor do the very senior levels of organizational management that I have access to ask these things.


All interments were done under OIC's, not sure how that would play out now with the Charter of Rights?


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> All interments were done under OIC's, not sure how that would play out now with the Charter of Rights?


Any and all actions by government authorities is subject to the Charter. Could the legislature conceivably pass new legislation and invoke the Notwithstanding Clause against the sections governing legal rights? Conceivably yes, but it would be political suicide and they know it, nor would such actions realistically be enforceable. We wouldn’t do it.


----------



## lenaitch (11 Oct 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> We're seeing issues with businesses not accepting CAF member's vaccine books as proof of vaccination since its federal and not the provincial certification. The CAF told members not to worry, our needle books would be good enough. Guess the CAF forgot to tell everyone else.



It's actually mentioned in the guidelines issued by the Ontario Ministry of Health, but given that focus has been on the standard Ontario vaccination receipt and upcoming QR document, and compliance is on the shoulders of literally thousands of owners, barkeeps, wait staff, etc., it seems like a lesson in poor communications.

_"Patrons may present a receipt issued by the Ontario government (which may include a watermark), or a receipt signed by an Indigenous health provider, or a CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) proof of vaccination, or a receipt from another jurisdiction."_​​If it's a problem in facilities near military establishments who might regularly encounter military personnel, imagine what it's like in places like Toronto or any other place remote from an establishment.


----------



## lenaitch (11 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Would it be assault if the choice is: get the vaccine or live the next 1-x years in camp? The x being the length of time we are in a public health emergency.


You are still not getting the legal definition of the offence of 'assault', the reference of which was graciously provided to you.


----------



## Misses muffett (12 Oct 2021)

lenaitch said:


> "Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent".   Yes it does, and it's gone on since the day you were born; first by your parents and then by your society.  Following rules is a component of living in a civil society.  You are drawing a false equivalency between imposing rules and any reasonable definition of 'assault'.  Is an employer's requirement to show up to work on time five days a week as a condition of getting a paycheque, or a rule that requires you to drive on a particular side of the road, an 'assault' simply because you have decided you'd rather not?
> 
> Is this new rule of social engagement reasonable?  I'm not aware that it has been tested by any level of competent authority (that apparently nasty word again) yet, but all professional and general legal opinions I have seen say it is.  Did the rules change mid-stream?  Yes they did.  So did the requirement to wear seat belts.  It's called social evolution.
> 
> If it your view that you should have absolute personal sovereignty yet still fully and equally function within society, then I suppose there is not much others can say to you.  Nobody is proposing to assault you - indirectly or otherwise.  You have the absolute freedom to choose (consent) - and live with that choice.


So eloquent. Driving on the right side of the road and wearing a seatbelts are laws; this is a mandate. You are drawing false comparisons. There is no absolute freedom when you invoke ultimatums.

Yeah, sure I can find a new job, Ive had plenty...however Ive been invested in this one for quite some time. How would you like it if the bank said suddenly one day after years of paying into an investment, "You either do X (which youre clearly against) or we close your account without refund?"

 Depending on how one uses their authority it could be a nasty word. Surely, if you looked outside your own society you would see many professionals with opinions (whatever that means) that would beg to differ. Alas, though you will seek out information to confirm your own bias. 

Our laws used to condemn lots of things that are now legalized: being homosexual, smoking marijuana etc. But again this is a mandate...and Im not into dating men 🤗


----------



## lenaitch (12 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> So eloquent. Driving on the right side of the road and wearing a seatbelts are laws; this is a mandate. You are drawing false comparisons. There is no absolute freedom when you invoke ultimatums.
> 
> Yeah, sure I can find a new job, Ive had plenty...however Ive been invested in this one for quite some time. How would you like it if the bank said suddenly one day after years of paying into an investment, "You either do X (which youre clearly against) or we close your account without refund?"
> 
> ...



_"So eloquent"_

Why thank you, but I get the sense that I have been 'damned with faint praise'.

There is no "absolute freedom" in Canada or, I suspect any other functioning democracy.  People that like to quote the Charter often conveniently forget the very first Section:

_1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society._​
While I'm not aware of any element of the Covid response has been put to this test, at any level, the broad consensus holds that they would survive.  Believe the expert opinions or not.

It is true that they are "mandates", but they have been issued within the general legal authorities given to employers to manage the health and safety of their workplaces and other labour laws. There will be underlying 'enabling' legislation.  I'm not aware that Parliament has passed legislation surrounding the workplace use of cannabis, but employers have invoked mandates specific to the various workplaces.  Like them or not.

Out of simple practicality, not every action of the State has to flow from an individual Act of Parliament (proposed Bill, three readings, committee, etc.).  For example, if you want to eat in a restaurant in Ontario, the requirement to show proof of vaccination are laid out in Regulation 364/20 under the 'Reopening Ontario Act.  Regulations are approved by Cabinet, not the Legislature and, by their nature, can be more responsive and dynamic.

I get it; your employer has, or is about to, impose a new workplace rule that you're not particularly thrilled with.  It seems you have three choices;  comply, don't comply and leave, don't comply and fight it.  Your call - good luck with whichever path you choose.  I'm sure you could find civilian employment that is absolutely free of any rules you don't agree with.


----------



## QV (12 Oct 2021)

There are way too many people filled with glee on this creep towards authoritarianism.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2021)

CountDC said:


> I think the most logical post I have seen in the thread and explains why we need to push vaccines is the one that mentioned the vulnerable chid unable to receive it and at risk.
> 
> Passports I do think are funny and read an interesting take on that I can't recall the wording of but boils down to -  If you did the right thing, got the needle to protect yourself, you have to carry something to prove it.   The person that didn't get it doesn't have to carry anything, goes to the restaurant and sits on the patio.  Can't go to the bar, house party.   Theatre - who really goes there anymore?  Stay home, make popcorn and enjoy the movie for a fraction with friends and family.  Concerts - pay a small fortune to watch someone lip sync to their electronic altered recording?  Stay home, have a party and turn on the radio.    No gym - do anti-vaxxers actually use them?    Who is really getting punished?


I took my three kids to a movie last week when my oldest was down visiting - we where the only 4 people in the theatre, was a fantastic time.

   We don't have passports here in VA, and the mask mandates for many things are county to county based, but you do make an interesting point on who is being hassled WRT passports - that said - based on what I have observed here, the vaccinate people are generally the ones taking more precautions anyway.




Misses muffett said:


> Asserting authority over someone takes away their consent. In cases of sexual assault someone who is a subordinate cannot consent. Assault is assault regardless of the subtype. Furthermore, and most importantly an assault includes the use of indirect force, so being at arms length does not mean you are not culpable.


This is legitimately one of the stupidest things I've read here.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> There are way too many people filled with glee on this creep towards authoritarianism.


I could understand the reasoning, IF mandatory vaccinations had not been common in the past.
   Small Pox - I still have my arm scar
   Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella etc - all common and mandatory at certain points in ones life - IF one wants to interact with society.


----------



## QV (12 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> I could understand the reasoning, IF mandatory vaccinations had not been common in the past.
> Small Pox - I still have my arm scar
> Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella etc - all common and mandatory at certain points in ones life - IF one wants to interact with society.


It’s not just the vax mandates. It’s censorship, bought out media, firearms confiscation, cancel culture etc etc.  How the vax mandates are being handled is just a part of the long march. Look at the messaging, if someone doesn‘t believe a COVID vaccine is needed for them personally, they‘re termed with venom an “anti-vaxxer” even though they may have every other possible inoculation. Things are not looking good long term. The handling of this pandemic is a part of all that.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> It’s not just the vax mandates. It’s censorship, bought out media, firearms confiscation, cancel culture etc etc.  How the vax mandates are being handled is just a part of the long march. Look at the messaging, if someone doesn‘t believe a COVID vaccine is needed for them personally, they‘re termed with venom an “anti-vaxxer” even though they may have every other possible inoculation. Things are not looking good long term. The handling of this pandemic is a part of all that.


Only if you chose to view it that way.
  Pick your battles and fight the relevant fights - but the polarization of society is nothing new - but fighting a vaccine mandate to me, just serves to further fragment the right.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> I could understand the reasoning, IF mandatory vaccinations had not been common in the past.
> Small Pox - I still have my arm scar
> Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella etc - all common and mandatory at certain points in ones life - IF one wants to interact with society.


A British woman wrote about her experiences as the daughter of an anti Vaxx mom in the 60s. Basically she said she spent a lot of her pre teen and teen years sick in bed. 

I know its an anecdotal piece and not real evidence but if you choose not to get vaccinated and by chance contract COVID who will care for you? A Rhetorical question of course but people may want to think about that.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> A British woman wrote about her experiences as the daughter of an anti Vaxx mom in the 60s. Basically she said she spent a lot of her pre teen and teen years sick in bed.
> 
> I know its an anecdotal piece and not real evidence but if you choose not to get vaccinated and by chance contract COVID who will care for you? A Rhetorical question of course but people may want to think about that.


Unfortunately a lot of people don't think about the tertiary issues.

With rights come responsibilities - quite often people forget the responsibilities we all bare.


----------



## dimsum (12 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> With rights come responsibilities - quite often people forget the responsibilities we all bare.


Yep.  

"I HAVE RIGHTS!"  

"Yes, but you also have responsibilities."


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> I could understand the reasoning, IF mandatory vaccinations had not been common in the past.
> Small Pox - I still have my arm scar
> Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella etc - all common and mandatory at certain points in ones life - IF one wants to interact with society.


I had to annually provide my employer a valid certificate signed by my doctor "or a delegate" stating I was vaccinated against influenza "to continue to be considered employable."


----------



## dapaterson (12 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> With rights come responsibilities - quite often people forget the responsibilities we all bare.


We'll just call you "Uncle Ben Parker".


----------



## QV (12 Oct 2021)

dimsum said:


> Yep.
> 
> "I HAVE RIGHTS!"
> 
> "Yes, but you also have responsibilities."


I’d worry more about COVID-19 if two things were true:

1. the virus killed more people every year in Canada than medical errors; and
2. the average age of those killed with/by COVID-19 was far less than the average life expectancy in Canada.

Neither of those is true. 

Add the ever changing goal posts and re-writing of science and scientific definitions (such as herd immunity), censorship (bill C-10, and cancel culture), untrustworthy political leadership, institutions losing public trust, vaccine effectiveness waning, complete ignore of recovered naturally immune or antibody level checks, privileged parts of society exempt the vax (parliament!, judiciary?) etc, you could go on and on. Because of all that I believe this mandate is not justified (particularly with the majority pop. already willingly vaccinated). There were things we could have done early in the pandemic, we did the opposite.

For the roughly 75% here pro mandate what’s the goal, 90%, 98%, 100%? Is it done then, or boosters every six months... for ever? Where does this end?


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> I’d worry more about COVID-19 if two things were true:
> 
> 1. the virus killed more people every year in Canada than medical errors; and
> 2. the average age of those killed with/by COVID-19 was far less than the average life expectancy in Canada.
> ...


Huh, that's the stupidest thing I've read today. Both are avoidable, and the new variants a lot of younger, healthier non-vaccinated people are dying and otherwise ending up with permanent after effects. At what point are you going to decide that COVID is 'bad enough' to get vaccinated?  When you're on a ventilator? 

Also, about 25% of people get long term affects, including permanent organ damage. So that's a few hundred thousand Canadians who have had or still have lingering affects. Sure, they aren't dead, but not being dead isn't a really great metric when you can't get out of bed, or can't breathe, or now have your life shortened because your heart/lungs have been messed up. If you are going to talk about context, consider the full context of COVID other than just dying, and that our death rates are only not higher because of massive efforts of our health care providers, with the whole system now massively overstrained with medical professionals getting burnt out and leaving it all together. That's a generational impact that will drop our general health care quality and have massive 2nd and 3rd order implications.

We wear seatbelts to prevent people going through windshields and dying. We ban talking on phones while driving to reduce avoidable accidents. People have to take gun safety courses so they don't accidentally shoot themselves. Why is this so hard?


----------



## suffolkowner (12 Oct 2021)

Specifically I find it hard to see a vaccination mandate for the military being unlawful/unethical. With respect to the rest it comes down to what everyone has already mentioned, people don't have to get vaccinated but they can expect that some activities and opportunities will be restricted or unavailable to them. This particular coronavirus and its various mutations has been a particularly effective agent as it is highly transmissable. It is wrong in my opinion to judge the danger by comparing the results without taking into understanding the public health measures enacted, which have drastically reduced infection rates and deaths. Why anyone would want to risk acquiring natural immunity over the choice of vaccination we have been given is beyond me


----------



## Misses muffett (12 Oct 2021)

Happy Guy said:


> I was wondering and I'm not a lawyer.   If you were unvaccinated because you refused to do so, you were an asymptomatic carrier (like Typhoid Mary) and you inflected someone and who died because of you, can you be charged under civil law?


Theyde have to prove it was you who infected them, beyond a reasonable doubt...this is not AIDS were talking about here


----------



## Misses muffett (12 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Theyde have to prove it was you who infected them, beyond a reasonable doubt...this is not AIDS were talking about here


And if you were unaware you had it...how could you be culpable...blame the bats


----------



## Misses muffett (12 Oct 2021)

lenaitch said:


> _"So eloquent"_
> 
> Why thank you, but I get the sense that I have been 'damned with faint praise'.
> 
> ...


Why thanks you Sir, I appreciate your elongated response. You mentioned absolute freedom first, so I figured it must exist. I do plan to fight it: 🦷 and 💅 and am enameled by your overwhelming support 🤗 did I say enameled...🤔
I meant enamoured 😬


----------



## Remius (12 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Theyde have to prove it was you who infected them, beyond a reasonable doubt...this is not AIDS were talking about here


There are more than enough anti vax freaks out there that spit or cough on people or urinate on restaurant counters because they are special snowflakes that find wearing a mask or getting a needle is hard and lose their minds when they can’t get their garden supplies.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Why thanks you Sir, I appreciate your elongated response. You mentioned absolute freedom first, so I figured it must exist. I do plan to fight it: 🦷 and 💅 and am enameled by your overwhelming support 🤗 did I say enameled...🤔
> I meant enamoured 😬


Good luck fighting it.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  Enjoy early retirement.


----------



## Misses muffett (12 Oct 2021)

dimsum said:


> Yep.
> 
> "I HAVE RIGHTS!"
> 
> "Yes, but you also have responsibilities."


Yes, we have rights and responsibilities. It is too early to say what is right...all the cards are not on the table. Our responses may be different, each thinking they are being responsible.


----------



## Misses muffett (12 Oct 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Good luck fighting it.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  Enjoy early retirement.


🥱


SupersonicMax said:


> Good luck fighting it.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  Enjoy early retirement.


 If only it were that easy 👑


----------



## Zoomie (13 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> 🥱
> 
> If only it were that easy 👑


In reality it’s pretty easy.   LWOP while being processed release under 5f.  We were discussing the way forward on this today.

There is zero sympathy for those who wish to remain unvaccinated in the CAF - no grievance authority will support any redress attempts.


----------



## Quirky (13 Oct 2021)

What a time to be alive when someone is willing to lose their job over health concerns of a vaccine while holding a monster can and sucking back on a vape flute. Good way to thin the herd.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> In reality it’s pretty easy.   LWOP while being processed release under 5f.  We were discussing the way forward on this today.
> 
> There is zero sympathy for those who wish to remain unvaccinated in the CAF - no grievance authority will support any redress attempts.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> In reality it’s pretty easy.   LWOP while being processed release under 5f.  We were discussing the way forward on this today.


It's not pretty easy. Under what QR&O or CBI can someone be placed against thier will on LWOP? We have people credibility accused of murder and sexual assault who still were paid while the process played out. What legal basis will the CAF have to justify stopping someone's pay who worked in person safely through the pandemic with no vaccine, but magically now is unclean because they don't want it?

The easy part is the Surgeon General/D Med Pol changing the enrollment or continued service vaccination standard so those who don't want COVID19 vaccination now beach UoS. It's quite another to make up a rule to stop someone's pay abruptly, and that's a pretty slippery slope. How many suicides are you willing to accept for a policy like this, which instead of respectfully transitioning someone out of service, forces them to choose feeding thier family over deeply held beliefs?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> deeply held beliefs?


But they were cool to all the other injectons they've had since joining???


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> But they were cool to all the other injectons they've had since joining???


You're making an assumption. There's plenty of reasons folks don't want it. Brow beating them, taking thier pay away and dehumanizing them by labeling them anti-vaxxers seems like it's working though, right?

I guess it's just like our COVID-19 lockdown and mask measures. It hasn't stopped 3 waves but if we just do the same stuff over again but harder it'll totally work this time!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Oct 2021)

Who says it isn't working??   There's not dead bodies laying in the streets, are there??

Could have been....


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> You're making an assumption. There's plenty of reasons folks don't want it. Brow beating them, taking thier pay away and dehumanizing them by labeling them anti-vaxxers seems like it's working though, right?
> 
> I guess it's just like our COVID-19 lockdown and mask measures. It hasn't stopped 3 waves but if we just do the same stuff over again but harder it'll totally work this time!


You make the mistake that it was designed to do that.

It was simply designed to slow the spread - so the ICU's wouldn't all be totally packed and people dying at rates vastly higher than they do now.


----------



## dimsum (13 Oct 2021)

KevinB said:


> You make the mistake that it was designed to do that.
> 
> It was simply designed to slow the spread - so the ICU's wouldn't all be totally packed and people dying at rates vastly higher than they do now.


Exactly.   Remember "Flatten the curve"?



PuckChaser said:


> The easy part is the Surgeon General/D Med Pol changing the enrollment or continued service vaccination standard so those who don't want COVID19 vaccination now beach UoS. It's quite another to make up a rule to stop someone's pay abruptly, and that's a pretty slippery slope. How many suicides are you willing to accept for a policy like this, which instead of respectfully transitioning someone out of service, forces them to choose feeding thier family over deeply held beliefs?


So, basically the same stance as other employers (both public and private sector) have been doing?

One can't even use the line that "the CAF made us do this" or "injury due to service" - the CAF specifically did _not_ mandate a vaccine.  For all we know (I'm not in the loop here) it could be an expedited release so that the former CAF member can find work elsewhere.


----------



## Quirky (13 Oct 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> But they were cool to all the other injectons they've had since joining???


They didn’t have time to do their research at basic…


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Oct 2021)

dimsum said:


> Exactly.   Remember "Flatten the curve"?
> 
> 
> So, basically the same stance as other employers (both public and private sector) have been doing?
> ...


Good luck with that, the easiest transition for a lot of CAF members is into defence related positions that require access to DND properties. If I was hiring people I'd probably play it safe and assume that would require COVID vaccination at some point to do the job, and employers are free to have their own vaccine mandates as well regardless. I think being non-vaccinated will be career limiting fairly globally, and also prevent folks from traveling etc.

While our vacc rates in Canada is pretty high, still in single digits in a lot of countries, so going to be a few years until this global pandemic is under control globally.

I've still yet to hear a 'firmly held belief' that isn't rooted in misinformation/lies. Vaccines don't cause autism (haven't 'leveled up' yet). When you get a vaccine, you are creating a natural immunity so that your immune system can fight the real thing (it's like sending your immune system onpre-deployment training), so it is still your immune system protecting yoy. And so far, I haven't got a Wifi, 5G or other boost, so it's a bit disappointing.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2021)

Getting a vaccine is analogous to living in an old western movie:

The government sends a wanted poster (vaccine) to the sheriff (immune system) who rounds up a posse (antibodies) for when the villain (infectious agent) appears.


----------



## dimsum (13 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> And so far, I haven't got a Wifi, 5G or other boost, so it's a bit disappointing.


That's because you aren't in a 7G service zone


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 Oct 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Getting a vaccine is analogous to living in an old western movie:
> 
> The government sends a wanted poster (vaccine) to the sheriff (immune system) who rounds up a posse (antibodies) for when the villain (infectious agent) appears.



To carry the analogy further, the anti-vaxxers


----------



## mariomike (13 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> I've still yet to hear a 'firmly held belief' that isn't rooted in misinformation/lies.


I'm ok with their "firmly held beliefs".

If they "firmly believe" they have the right to refuse the vaccine - that's fine with me.

When they go on to suggest they have the right to mix with others without limitation. 




Blackadder1916 said:


> To carry the analogy further, the anti-vaxxers


Gary Cooper ran out of bullets. Chuck Connors never did.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> It's not pretty easy. Under what QR&O or CBI can someone be placed against thier will on LWOP?



Um... it's the military, right?

I've seen people subjected to much worse 'against their will'.

As a wise SNCO I worked with once opined: 'The Army is always a battle of wills... and you WILL always lose.'


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> It's not pretty easy. Under what QR&O or CBI can someone be placed against thier will on LWOP? We have people credibility accused of murder and sexual assault who still were paid while the process played out. What legal basis will the CAF have to justify stopping someone's pay who worked in person safely through the pandemic with no vaccine, but magically now is unclean because they don't want it?



All things considered it seems like a hollow threat to make. 

Just like firing thousands of health care providers when the health care system is so overburdened and short staffed they've had to call in the military.  

Looks like the nurses et el in Quebec called the governments bluff and they were given another month to get vaccinated "or else".


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2021)

> Small Pox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella



Childhood vaccinations.  Decisions made by parents, not the individuals vaccinated.  People keep dragging out comparisons that are invalid for a novel pandemic and novel vaccines (ones without decades of use history).  Best to stick to probabilities: if your age > X, you are safer getting vaccinated (benefit > vaccine risk).  If your age < X, you are safer without vaccination (benefit < vaccine risk).  Figure out what X is.  Also recognize natural immunity.  Also take a deep breath and just accept verbal yes/no along with risk of liars.

If denial of employment extends far enough, the problem of supporting people denied employment will arise.  Allowing them to starve is out of the question.  Creating a loophole ("vaccine conscientious objector") for people who don't want to work is unwise.  Best to head it off now and relax the panicked totalitarian response and muddle through.


----------



## brihard (13 Oct 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Um... it's the military, right?
> 
> I've seen people subjected to much worse 'against their will'.
> 
> As a wise SNCO I worked with once opined: 'The Army is always a battle of wills... and you WILL always lose.'


There still needs to be a sound legal basis for anything like that- members have the right to procedural fairness, even in the army. Fast path to a succesful grievance and/or judicial review if proper administrative law principles are not adhered to. If you’re going to stop someone’s pay, better have a written policy stemming from some legal authority to do so.


----------



## mariomike (13 Oct 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Childhood vaccinations.  Decisions made by parents, not the individuals vaccinated.


I remember standing in a long line of other kids.
I recently asked my mother about the "decision" part. She said nobody asked her opinion.


brihard said:


> Fast path to a succesful grievance and/or judicial review if proper administrative law principles are not adhered to.


What does your union say?

My former union is on board with unpaid suspension effective 1 Nov. and termination effective 13 Dec..

Who wants to be cooped up in a station, or vehicle, 40 hours a week with an unvaccinated partner?

We went through the same thing when annual influenza vaccination was mandated.

The union would send a rep to hold your hand while they terminatated you. But, that was it.

There was rumour of a mass resignation, and rescind. But, that never happened.



> Article 39 – RIGHT TO RESCIND RESIGNATION 39.01 An employee who resigns shall have the right to rescind their resignation, provided that they notify their immediate supervisor in writing, with a copy to the Division Head concerned, within five (5) working days of the date on which they tendered their resignation. Upon receipt of such written notification by the employee’s supervisor, the employee shall be reinstated to their former position upon the commencement of their next scheduled shift. It is understood that such time off shall be without pay, but with seniority and benefits.


----------



## brihard (13 Oct 2021)

mariomike said:


> I remember standing in a long line of other kids.
> I asked my mother about the "decision" part. She said nobody asked her.
> 
> What does your union say?
> ...


Not gonna get into union advice to members on open means, however my understanding is that multiple federal unions have received legal advice that, at its core, a vaccine requirement for employment is legal. The devil is in the details- how policy is actually implemented, and what authorities are relied upon for things like stopping pay, LWOP, etc.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2021)

Protective immunization has already been ruled a Bone fide operational requirement (BFOR). If one chooses not to obtain the required immunization, then one becomes non-deployable, and potentially non-employable, due to a circumstance wholly within the member's control.

Some may quote R v Kipling, which spoke to the constitutionality of s.126 of the NDA, but that case never reached its conclusion AFIK. It will likely take some time for there to be sufficient jurisprudence on the question of vaccine mandates vs s7 of the Charter before the CF has better ground to stand on.


----------



## mariomike (13 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Not gonna get into union advice to members on open means, however my understanding is that multiple federal unions have received legal advice that, at its core, a vaccine requirement for employment is legal.


I've been unemployed for well over a dozen years.
But, that is what i remember from personal past experience with mandated influenza vaccinations.

Thank-you for your insight.


----------



## QV (13 Oct 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Childhood vaccinations.  Decisions made by parents, not the individuals vaccinated.  People keep dragging out comparisons that are invalid for a novel pandemic and novel vaccines (ones without decades of use history).  Best to stick to probabilities: if your age > X, you are safer getting vaccinated (benefit > vaccine risk).  If your age < X, you are safer without vaccination (benefit < vaccine risk).  Figure out what X is.  Also recognize natural immunity.  Also take a deep breath and just accept verbal yes/no along with risk of liars.
> 
> If denial of employment extends far enough, the problem of supporting people denied employment will arise.  Allowing them to starve is out of the question.  Creating a loophole ("vaccine conscientious objector") for people who don't want to work is unwise.  Best to head it off now and relax the panicked totalitarian response and muddle through.



Everything in this post is being irrationally ignored by the folks making the decisions.


----------



## hattrick72 (13 Oct 2021)

Zoomie said:


> In reality it’s pretty easy.   LWOP while being processed release under 5f.  We were discussing the way forward on this today.
> 
> There is zero sympathy for those who wish to remain unvaccinated in the CAF - no grievance authority will support any redress attempts.


Provided the CoC acts is a way that is procedurally fair. I have no doubt that is the intent, but it only takes a couple dinosaurs to ruin it for the holy.


----------



## Happy Guy (13 Oct 2021)

> Misses muffett said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, we have rights and responsibilities. It is too early to say what is right...all the cards are not on the table. Our responses may be different, each thinking they are being responsible.


You remind me of someone who decides what information is a "fact" and others as "misinformation" to suit their purposes or someone who goes against the flow just to be noticed.  As many people here have stated everyone here has rights and freedoms as defined in the Charter of Rights, but we also have an obligation to try and harmoniously live in a civilized society and this means not harming our neighbours.  Please do not mention being a victim like the Jews in Nazi Germany these are not the same circumstances. I have visited the Holocaust Museum and it frankly makes me angry when some anti-vaxers compare themselves on the same level as the Jewish victims.

By the way, many people here are well informed and not "sheep" who blindly follow the crowd.  I read the information concerning the vaccines and was well aware of the risks when I got vaccinated.  I've read about mRNA technology and this have been around since the early 1970s.  I hope that you will overcome your fears about the COVID 19 vaccines. Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

Any unvaccinated person who deliberately walks into a close and confined space while unmasked is risking spreading COVID 19 to the unsuspecting people.  Please do yourself and my family a favour, distance yourself from anyone, wash your hands, wear a mask in public and go get tested on a daily basis if you don't want to get vaccinated.

Cheers


----------



## mariomike (13 Oct 2021)

Happy Guy said:


> By the way, many people here are well informed and not "sheep" who blindly follow the crowd.



What is happening in workplaces now reminds of something someone said to us a long time ago,

"We cannot _change_ _your_ _beliefs_. But, we can _change_ _your_ employment."

I didn't go to medical school, so I follow the direction of our local Medical Officer of Health. I guess that makes me a "sheeple".


----------



## lenaitch (13 Oct 2021)

mariomike said:


> I remember standing in a long line of other kids.
> I recently asked my mother about the "decision" part. She said nobody asked her opinion.
> 
> What does your union say?
> ...



I parted ideological ways with my association (and was a local branch president) when it started championing causes instead of just representing the members.  They say that they respect management's right to manage, but don't really mean it when it expects to be consulted and have its position reflected on every act of management.  Respect the process so that both sides act within the law and collective agreement.


----------



## kev994 (13 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> There still needs to be a sound legal basis for anything like that- members have the right to procedural fairness, even in the army. Fast path to a succesful grievance and/or judicial review if proper administrative law principles are not adhered to. If you’re going to stop someone’s pay, better have a written policy stemming from some legal authority to do so.


QR&O 208.31:
(1) Except as prescribed in paragraph (3) of this article, when no military service is rendered by an officer or non-commissioned member during any period and no forfeiture has been imposed in respect of that period, an officer commanding a command or formation may direct that a forfeiture be imposed for the whole or any part of that period.

So if you don’t come to work the CAF doesn’t need to pay you. I propose  that if you can’t come to work due to reasons within your control this paragraph still applies.


----------



## brihard (13 Oct 2021)

Sure, that can potentially cover part of it. There will need to be a legal mechanism to order CAF members not to work- to effectively suspend them from duty.

I’m by no means saying these facts are show stoppers. I’m simply saying administrative law requires due process and procedural fairness. There will need to be a legal basis for any such actions that can stand up to court challenge.


----------



## McG (14 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Under what QR&O or CBI can someone be placed against thier will on LWOP?


QR&O can be published under the authority of the Governor in Council (G), Treasury Board (T), the MND (M), or the CDS (C). There is no ambiguity that the direction, to get vaccinated or go on LWOP, is coming from PM with full cabinet backing. If the barracks room lawyers believe a specific QR&O is needed, that should be achievable since the order is coming from the body that can issue the highest of QR&O.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2021)

Literally everything we do is backed up by a written down policy. The QR&Os are our collective bargaining agreement. It provides that legal backing to conduct administration in the CAF. If the PM is issuing this direction, the CDS should be asking for an OIC QR&O change to support it. By not pushing that QR&O, the PM abdicating any responsibility to the CDS so if it goes south he can proclaim "that's not what I meant".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> so think the numbers lost to anti-vaxxers is much lower than potential losses from people rendered non-employable from COVID.



A few days late with this reply;  when we did our shots back in May/June, it was reported by the Wing CofC that about 96.4% of members had received both shots.  Like many bases/wings/stations, all had to 'attend' the parade but the choice to get the shot was left to the mbr.  96% is a solid number, IMO.  The remaining, some will go without fanfare if ordered now that their co-workers haven't turned into trolls and "walkers". Some will hold out and risk their continued service, pension etc if/when the "shall be vaccinated" order comes out (I'm on leave the past several weeks so I am not tracking from within Sqn lines....).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> By brutal lockdown, I mean, you can't visit anyone outside your household for 2 months at a time, can't leave your local area without an essential reason during those two months. Much of the same things we have seen just throttled up a bit more until we get a higher vaccination rate.



Your describing the 3rd wave in NS last spring, and  while it was restrictive, it wasn't brutal at all.  Nova Scotians were restricted to essential travel within their own counties.  It was during opening of rec fishing season;  some folks said "screw this" and got nailed with fines.

I have a friend who just returned this APS from an OUTCAN in Sicily; they were not allowed to leave their property for a significant time.  We're going "better than ok" here in Canada IMO....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> It’s not just the vax mandates. It’s censorship, bought out media, firearms confiscation, cancel culture etc etc.  How the vax mandates are being handled is just a part of the long march. Look at the messaging, if someone doesn‘t believe a COVID vaccine is needed for them personally, they‘re termed with venom an “anti-vaxxer” even though they may have every other possible inoculation. Things are not looking good long term. The handling of this pandemic is a part of all that.



While I don't necessarily disagree with you on those points singularly, I don't correlate the "vax mandate" to the others;  some of the others are unique to our Canadian cultures and society values;  COVID is borderless and a global...is threat too strong a word?

"Handling of the pandemic" in Canada so far;  the fed has, for the most part, let the provincial authorities look after their own AORs and make the necessary restrictions/regs etc.  I think Canada and the provinces / territories have done very well overall.


----------



## brihard (14 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Literally everything we do is backed up by a written down policy. The QR&Os are our collective bargaining agreement. It provides that legal backing to conduct administration in the CAF. If the PM is issuing this direction, the CDS should be asking for an OIC QR&O change to support it. By not pushing that QR&O, the PM abdicating any responsibility to the CDS so if it goes south he can proclaim "that's not what I meant".


The collective agreement comparison is an invalid one, a CBA cannot be arbitrarily changed by the employer. The federal mandates for unionized employees are taking place outside of anything specifically in the collective. Broadly, it’s ‘management rights’. It has been enacted on the strength of a TBS policy that does not require an OIC regulatory instrument. I don’t see anything suggesting this is not within the existing legal authorities of the CDS- he just needs to be clear about which internal orders/policy instruments will authorize the various steps to effect the requirement and the consequences for not complying.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> a CBA cannot be arbitrarily changed by the employer.


Never say they can't, they SHOULDN'T be allowed to do it,......but Rae Days.


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> , a CBA cannot be arbitrarily changed by the employer.





Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Never say they can't, they SHOULDN'T be allowed to do it,......but Rae Days.


Rae days cost 144 hours pay at straight time. But, gained 144 hours OT.

Our loss was their loss.   



lenaitch said:


> Respect the process so that both sides act within the law and collective agreement.


----------



## Kilted (14 Oct 2021)

Should we maybe rename this thread so that it doesn't sound like everyone on here is an anti-vaxer? Perhaps a tile like disobeying a lawful order?


----------



## hattrick72 (14 Oct 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Your describing the 3rd wave in NS last spring, and  while it was restrictive, it wasn't brutal at all.  Nova Scotians were restricted to essential travel within their own counties.  It was during opening of rec fishing season;  some folks said "screw this" and got nailed with fines.
> 
> I have a friend who just returned this APS from an OUTCAN in Sicily; they were not allowed to leave their property for a significant time.  We're going "better than ok" here in Canada IMO....


Wasn't Nova Scotia on their second wave when Ontario and BC were on their third?  Doesn't really matter I guess, may be easier to keep count with Canada rather than what happened locally. 

How long can you be banned from seeing your family in the next community before it becomes a brutal restriction? Given your example of NS, look at Sackville/Amherst. 

I'm with you on the fact that in short term none of what Canada has endured is brutal, but coming up on 24 months of fairly consistent lockdown, I would say it is turning towards brutal for the civilian population.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Wasn't Nova Scotia on their second wave when Ontario and BC were on their third?  Doesn't really matter I guess, may be easier to keep count with Canada rather than what happened locally.
> 
> How long can you be banned from seeing your family in the next community before it becomes a brutal restriction? Given your example of NS, look at Sackville/Amherst.
> 
> I'm with you on the fact that in short term none of what Canada has endured is brutal, but coming up on 24 months of fairly consistent lockdown, I would say it is turning towards brutal for the civilian population.


What part of the country are you in?


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> You're making an assumption. There's plenty of reasons folks don't want it. Brow beating them, taking thier pay away and dehumanizing them by labeling them anti-vaxxers seems like it's working though, right?
> 
> I guess it's just like our COVID-19 lockdown and mask measures. It hasn't stopped 3 waves but if we just do the same stuff over again but harder it'll totally work this time!


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

True. I havent had a vaccine since Ive been in, or since I was in my teens - it was also not a condition of my enrollment. The segregation and degradation is disgusting aka harassment.


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Good luck with that, the easiest transition for a lot of CAF members is into defence related positions that require access to DND properties. If I was hiring people I'd probably play it safe and assume that would require COVID vaccination at some point to do the job, and employers are free to have their own vaccine mandates as well regardless. I think being non-vaccinated will be career limiting fairly globally, and also prevent folks from traveling etc.
> 
> While our vacc rates in Canada is pretty high, still in single digits in a lot of countries, so going to be a few years until this global pandemic is under control globally.
> 
> I've still yet to hear a 'firmly held belief' that isn't rooted in misinformation/lies. Vaccines don't cause autism (haven't 'leveled up' yet). When you get a vaccine, you are creating a natural immunity so that your immune system can fight the real thing (it's like sending your immune system onpre-deployment training), so it is still your immune system protecting yoy. And so far, I haven't got a Wifi, 5G or other boost, so it's a bit disappointing.


There is a correlation between rates of Autism and increased vaccines. This is not causation of course...who would ever fund that type of research?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> There is a correlation between rates of Autism and increased vaccines. This is not causation of course...who would ever fund that type of research?


I’m pretty sure that study was discredited. Jenny McArthy et al need to stfu about things they know nothing of.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2021)

Correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Correlation does not equal causation.


Thats what i said 👀


----------



## brihard (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> There is a correlation between rates of Autism and increased vaccines. This is not causation of course...who would ever fund that type of research?


Jesus. No. That was completely discredited, the paper was retracted, and Andrew Wakefield, the charlatan who popularized that bit of nonsense, had his license to practice medicine revoked for fraudulent research publication. If you believe in a link between vaccines and autism, you are a credulous fool.


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> I’m pretty sure that study was discredited. Jenny McArthy et al need to stfu about things they know nothing of.


Not sure which study you speak of. However autism rates have increased with increased number of various vaccines. Resulting in a positive correlation. No study needed.


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

brihard said:


> Jesus. No. That was completely discredited, the paper was retracted, and Andrew Wakefield, the charlatan who popularized that bit of nonsense, had his license to practice medicine revoked for fraudulent research publication. If you believe in a link between vaccines and autism, you are a credulous fool.


There is also a positive correlation between how many beers you drink and the increase in your blood alcohol content. Again, no study needed.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Not sure which study you speak of. However autism rates have increased with increased number of various vaccines. Resulting in a positive correlation. No study needed.


Did you not read Brihards post or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Maybe autism rates are up because of all the shifty chemicals we have used to preserve food?


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> There is also a positive correlation between how many beers you drink and the increase in your blood alcohol content. Again, no study needed.


Name calling on the other hand has a negative correlation to the effectiveness of your argument.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> True. I havent had a vaccine since Ive been in, or since I was in my teens - it was also not a condition of my enrollment. The segregation and degradation is disgusting aka harassment.


Have you ever deployed?  If not, how are you planning on DAGing green without the require shots?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Name calling on the other hand has a negative correlation to the effectiveness of your argument.


I never called you anything. Have a good day.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Oct 2021)

Autism rates are up because we've evolved as a caring species and just no longer call someone the village idiot because of some bad luck in life.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Autism rates are up because we've evolved as a caring species and just no longer call someone the village idiot because of some bad luck in life.


Ummm some are idiots.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Not sure which study you speak of. However autism rates have increased with increased number of various vaccines. Resulting in a positive correlation. No study needed.


What incresed vaccines are those please?  You obviously have studied this.......


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Did you not read Brihards post or are you being deliberately obtuse?
> 
> Maybe autism rates are up because of all the shifty chemicals we have used to preserve good





Bruce Monkhouse said:


> What incresed vaccines are those please?  You obviously have studied this.......


Yes, I have. Vaccine History: Developments by Year | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia


----------



## dimsum (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> True. I havent had a vaccine since Ive been in, or since I was in my teens - it was also not a condition of my enrollment. The segregation and degradation is disgusting aka harassment.


Wait what?  How did you somehow escape the vax lineup during Basic Training?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Oct 2021)

And its the same number of 'recommended vaccines" since 2005.......so your argument is what again???


Misses muffett said:


> Yes, I have. Vaccine History: Developments by Year | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> There is also a positive correlation between how many beers you drink and the increase in your blood alcohol content. Again, no study needed.




We should just take this correlation as fact?

FWIW, the correlation between alcohol consumed and BAC is a very much active research field.









						The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States
					

The National Transportation Safety Board recently recommended that states establish a per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of 0.05 or lower for all drivers who are not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits in a national effort to reduce ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Oct 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> View attachment 66781
> 
> We should just take this correlation as fact?


Wow. That is creepy. I would be worried. If I lived in Maine. Or ate margarine…


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Yes, I have. Vaccine History: Developments by Year | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia





Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And its the same number of 'recommended vaccines" since 2005.......so your argument is what again???


I didnt even bring up Autism, someone else did lol but since you asked the vaccine schedule has increased since 1950 and so has Autism. Derive from that what you will.


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> View attachment 66781
> 
> We should just take this correlation as fact?
> 
> ...


I hate margarine and marriage so Im good! 😇


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> I hate margarine and marriage so Im good! 😇


Youre funny 🧈 can we agree that butter is better?!?


----------



## Misses muffett (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Youre funny 🧈 can we agree that butter is better?!?


Purely, a subjective assertion of course 🤗


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> I hate margarine and marriage so Im good! 😇


What about this one, with more serious sources and more relevant content?


----------



## Misses muffett (15 Oct 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> What about this one, with more serious sources and more relevant content?
> 
> View attachment 66784


Again, I didnt bring up the autism connection to vaccines. And am not saying that vaccines causes it. There are too many factors to consider. Perhaps this graph indicates that people are trying to combat autism with organic food. Everyone loves to play the devil's avocado 🥑


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Again, I didnt bring up the autism connection to vaccines. And am not saying that vaccines causes it. There are too many factors to consider. Perhaps this graph indicates that people are trying to combat autism with organic food. Everyone loves to play the devil's avocado 🥑


But yet, you brought up the causation between vaccine and autism….



Misses muffett said:


> I didnt even bring up Autism, someone else did lol but since you asked the vaccine schedule has increased since 1950 and so has Autism. Derive from that what you will.



You clearly have an agenda against vaccines in general.  Just providing facts to weaken your argument.


----------



## Quirky (15 Oct 2021)

Don’t feed the troll.


----------



## Misses muffett (15 Oct 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> But yet, you brought up the causation between vaccine and autism….
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have an agenda against vaccines in general.  Just providing facts to weaken your argument.


Again, I did not bring up causation: Only correlation. See what you want.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Again, I did not bring up causation: Only correlation. See what you want.


You did.  You said:


Misses muffett said:


> I didnt even bring up Autism, someone else did lol but since you asked the vaccine schedule has increased since 1950 and so has Autism. Derive from that what you will.


Your last sentence is a reference to causation (or not).  Otherwise, derive what?


----------



## Misses muffett (15 Oct 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You did.  You said:
> 
> Your last sentence is a reference to causation (or not).  Otherwise, derive what?


 - take from it whatever you want. Many brooks lead into the river which then goes into the ocean. Pretend the ocean is autism...all the contributing factors are the brooks and rivers...vaccines may be a contributing factor...are they causation? Or just correlation? Unethical experiments would have to be done in order to prove causation...as of right now I have NOT been diagnosed as having autism. That is NOT to say that I dont already have it...just that I have NOT been diagnosed.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Thats what i said 👀


Right.  Vaccines don’t cause autism.  We’re all agreed then…assuming Jenny McCarthy and others aren’t in this site.


----------



## rnkelly (15 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Everyone loves to play the devil's avocado 🥑


That was pretty good.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Everyone loves to play the devil's avocado 🥑


I'm totally using that to see if anyone notices.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> Wasn't Nova Scotia on their second wave when Ontario and BC were on their third?  Doesn't really matter I guess, may be easier to keep count with Canada rather than what happened locally.
> 
> How long can you be banned from seeing your family in the next community before it becomes a brutal restriction? Given your example of NS, look at Sackville/Amherst.
> 
> I'm with you on the fact that in short term none of what Canada has endured is brutal, but coming up on 24 months of fairly consistent lockdown, I would say it is turning towards brutal for the civilian population.



My family is from PEI, including my aging parents and in-laws; 3 hour drive from my doorstep to theirs.  We weren't allowed to go home over the Holidays last year.  I don't consider that brutal; the people who are responsible to manage and mitigate that risk have my trust they are doing it with the best of their ability - I don't have their knowledge, experience or information so try to not arm-chair it too much.  They appreciate me telling them how to do their jobs as much as I'd "appreciate" them standing behind me telling me how to operate RADAR or something _based on some stuff they read and their opinion on how it works_.  

I "worst case scenario" things a lot;  the "worst case scenario" in me going to PEI to visit family is "they get sick and don't survive".  I find that risk harder to live with than the disappointment of missed family visits / events.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> It hasn't stopped 3 waves but if we just do the same stuff over again but harder it'll totally work this time!



I don't remember the goal/intent of masks, "lockdowns" or even the vaccination to STOP the spread....but to mitigate/manage/delay, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> I didnt even bring up Autism, someone else did lol but since you asked the vaccine schedule has increased since 1950 and so has Autism. Derive from that what you will.


I was driving on the highway, pressed down on my gas pedal and my car sped up. 

Another car ALSO sped up, so it must have been because I pressed my gas pedal.  Right?  That is the version of correlation you're presenting...


----------



## Happy Guy (15 Oct 2021)

Ref: The Real Reasons Autism Rates Are Up in the U.S.

According to the above ref, Autism was first diagnosed in 1943 and the definition of Autism has changed throughout the years.  There has been a rise in Autism rates but according to Scientific American the increase in rates have been attributed to an increased awareness of Autism. Someone already has mentioned this in this discussion.

I happen to do read Scientific American on a regular basis, mainly to keep up with my children who are studying in the STEM fields.  As far as I know this periodical is widely respected and is not known to have published any theories using spurious correlation (Supersonic Max - loved that example and I am pro organic food) as its basis just to prove it.

There are much more articles by respected scientific journals as well as statements from Medical Associations disproving the theory that vaccines causes autism but I doubt that any anti-vaxer will believe them.  These are zealots who picket in front of hospitals and deliberately hamper anyone seeking medical treatment. This group will believe what it wants to believe and ignore everything else.  The best we, as a society, is to limit the disinformation and try to protect the vulnerable population like our elderly in Long Term Care Homes and our young children who are not vaccinated from them.

Having been born and raised in Canada I have directly benefited from being vaccinated.  I no longer fear getting polio and small pox (yes I am of the generation that had the vaccine and the corresponding scar on my left arm).  Thanks to the hard work by the medical profession my children and their generation no longer have to get the small pox and polio vaccination.  The irony is that the government and medical profession did their work so well that it has led rise to a group of people who are anti-vaccine because they have not experienced anyone who has had small pox or polio.  I have been deployed in regions where there are limited health care programmes in place and I have seen the terrible effects of disease and poor hygiene conditions have wrought to the population.

I strongly encourage the vaccine hesitate people to talk with their medical professionals and not consult the internet.


----------



## Happy Guy (15 Oct 2021)

PS, .... Thank God I'm retired so I don't have to work along side a non-vaccinated person.  My rights to work in hazard less, stress free environment would have be violated


----------



## Remius (15 Oct 2021)

I remember the whole mercury in vaccines was linked to autism.  Then over time mercury levels were reduced yet autism rates didn’t follow suit.  So anti vaxxers just picked something else to fill their narrative.  Because being wrong was worse than than doing damage to a proven science.   There is more mercury in a can of Tuna than in a vaccine but that seems to escape the vaccine/autism fantasy world.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2021)

> Another car ALSO sped up, so it must have been because I pressed my gas pedal.  Right?



Right, if the other driver was male.  No man can let another car go faster, ever, or his man card is taken away.


----------



## Happy Guy (15 Oct 2021)

Please real man never gets lost despite what the wife and kids in the back seat says.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> There is a correlation between rates of Autism and increased vaccines. This is not causation of course...who would ever fund that type of research?


Sigh... there is also a correlation between the increase in autism and the decrease in pirates, but I don't think anyone is suggesting we need more pirates, or that is something we should fund for causation.  The vaccine link has been studied, and aside from the study that was discredited because the data was made up, zero causation has been found.

Autism itself is diagnosed by psychologists, not by any kind of repeatable medical marker, and the definition keeps expanding to include all kinds of things that previously were separate diagnoses all together (like Aspergers for example). If you go back a few generations in history, people were just considered weird or massively disabled and there was no diagnoses, but there is lots of evidence with all kinds of people having autistic traits throughout history. 

So the rate itself will increase simply on the basis of the widened net of the diagnoses and increased screening, plus actual understanding of the conditions. Additionally, people diagnosed as adults in their 40s, 50s and 60s didn't suddenly wake up with it, so getting a relevant incidence rate would have to involve adjusting the date backwards to a standard reference point (ie birth date) instead of a diagnosis date.

All the current research indicates it's a genetic condition that you are born with, with some possibilities that there are general environmental conditions for in vitro exposure that may aggravate the development of it if you are someone who is predisposed towards it, but things are basically locked in before you are born. There are a lot of different conditions (generically lumped in under 'neurodiversity') in the same boat, and lots of people in and out of the CAF leading productive lives with no issue.

Conversely, mumps, measles, rubella and polio will all kill you or leave you maimed, and COVID can potentially do the same thing. There are some rare cases for of real vaccine side effects, but it's exponentially lower than actual COVID risks, so not really sure what you are on about.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Sigh... there is also a correlation between the increase in autism and the decrease in pirates, but I don't think anyone is suggesting we need more pirates, or that is something we should fund for causation.  The vaccine link has been studied, and aside from the study that was discredited because the data was made up, zero causation has been found.


What's wrong with pirates?


----------



## HiTechComms (15 Oct 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> What's wrong with pirates?


Reminds me of the Youtube Mitchel Webb skitt. Are we the baddies?. Hehe


----------



## hattrick72 (15 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> What part of the country are you in?


East coast


----------



## Remius (16 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> East coast


Has it been that brutal there?  Asking because I’m not there.


----------



## Misses muffett (16 Oct 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Sigh... there is also a correlation between the increase in autism and the decrease in pirates, but I don't think anyone is suggesting we need more pirates, or that is something we should fund for causation.  The vaccine link has been studied, and aside from the study that was discredited because the data was made up, zero causation has been found.
> 
> Autism itself is diagnosed by psychologists, not by any kind of repeatable medical marker, and the definition keeps expanding to include all kinds of things that previously were separate diagnoses all together (like Aspergers for example). If you go back a few generations in history, people were just considered weird or massively disabled and there was no diagnoses, but there is lots of evidence with all kinds of people having autistic traits throughout history.
> 
> ...





Eye In The Sky said:


> I was driving on the highway, pressed down on my gas pedal and my car sped up.
> 
> Another car ALSO sped up, so it must have been because I pressed my gas pedal.  Right?  That is the version of correlation you're presenting...


Using the word because implies a causal connection so...no lol


----------



## hattrick72 (16 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> Has it been that brutal there?  Asking because I’m not there.


Depends on the aspect. The spread of COVID had been limited, especially if you reference Ontario and Quebec. This helped to lower the severity of the lockdowns, so I believe, overall it has been more open here for day to day activities. However, you couldn't leave your jurisdictions for small amounts of time and you couldn't traverse into the next province without doing a lot of legwork. As soon as you got back, you were subject to a two week qaurantine. So, the rules haven't been as harsh, but they were more strict on average and sustained. 

I do see it from Eye in The sky's perspective, that it hasn't been horrible. Although, the longer it goes, the more pressure it causes. I also don't understand how people can casually give up two years with loved ones that are nearing end of life. You don't get that time back.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Oct 2021)

hattrick72 said:


> . I also don't understand how people can casually give up two years with loved ones that are nearing end of life. You don't get that time back.


How about because you love them??


----------



## hattrick72 (17 Oct 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> How about because you love them??


I think that will lead to regret. Not for everyone, but for the majority. 

Right now, we just gave up, potentially, 3% of our lives with loved ones. Another four years and that will be 8-10%. If you consider just your adult life with your parents, we have given up ~10-13% already.

There are circumstances that would necessitate isolating sick and or aging parents from contacting COVID, but we should have the freedom to make that choice, if it is not infringing on the rights of other people around them, such as at a LTCH. If a grandparent wants to risk their lives to see their kids and grandkids, and you, as the child are uncomfortable with that, then a good conversation on if that can happen would be healthy. 

Maybe, this will be the way when vaccination is allowed for children and everyone has had a chance to insulate themselves as they see fit with the resources at hand. I don't see any appetite to keep lockdowns in place once the whole population has access to the vaccine.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Oct 2021)

Remius said:


> Has it been that brutal there?  Asking because I’m not there.



No, it has not been brutal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Oct 2021)

Misses muffett said:


> Using the word because implies a causal connection so...no lol



You imply a connection between vaccination and autism because "of the 1950s".  Is that not a 'casual connection'?


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> No, it has not been brutal.


That’s the issue.  I don’t know what one defines as brutal.  I haven’t found it “brutal” in Ontario but experiences will vary.


----------



## QV (17 Oct 2021)

Wait until we start locking down for a bad flu season.


----------



## hattrick72 (17 Oct 2021)

QV said:


> Wait until we start locking down for a bad flu season.



Don't say such things.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2021)

Litigation team, UP!


> The Federal Court is scheduled to hear arguments today from four Canadian Armed Forces members facing disciplinary action for refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
> 
> Chief of the defence Gen. Wayne Eyre ordered all Armed Forces members to be vaccinated by the end of November or face remedial measures, including possible dismissal from the military. That deadline has since been extended to Dec. 18.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Anti-Royal (15 Dec 2021)

Military members challenge vaccine requirement in Federal Court
					

The Federal Court is scheduled to hear arguments today from four Canadian Armed Forces members facing disciplinary action for refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Forgive me if already posted in another thread.


----------



## OceanBonfire (15 Dec 2021)

Four members are challenging it:









						Military members challenge vaccine requirement in Federal Court
					

The Federal Court is scheduled to hear arguments today from four Canadian Armed Forces members facing disciplinary action for refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				












						Four Canadian military members challenge vaccine mandate in Federal Court - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Federal Court is scheduled to hear arguments today from four Canadian Armed Forces members facing disciplinary action for refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Dec 2021)

Guess we get to see S 126 play out in court


----------



## brihard (15 Dec 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Guess we get to see S 126 play out in court


I see nothing suggesting S.126 is in play here. I think they’re requesting an injunction against and judicial review of the CAF vaccine mandate and remedial measures. The back and forth over “should exercise grievance system” vs “order came from the CDS” suggests to me that this is a judicial review situation.

Not a chance they’ll get an injunction. If there’s a single organization in Canada with a strongest and most defensible ability to impose a vaccine mandate, it’s CAF.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2021)

It's a bullshit sneaky way they did it, as is tradition in the CAF. Should have just used existing policies to show these folks the door, but they wanted a politically expedient way to do it for some news clips and sound bites.


----------



## Remius (15 Dec 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> It's a bullshit sneaky way they did it, as is tradition in the CAF. Should have just used existing policies to show these folks the door, but they wanted a politically expedient way to do it for some news clips and sound bites.


What was sneaky about it?


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2021)

An order that made you attest to medical data, so they can get around actually using the QR&O to order you to get vaccinated. Just needed to have the Surgeon General of the CAF make COVID vaccination a baseline requirement and let the medical system boot people who would DAG Red. That would take too long though. They've also now just lost their key justification in that unvaccinated pers are a threat to force, as we have large outbreaks within the vaccinated CAF community. The data never supported vaccine mandates/passports, clearly they're not working as Decepticon variant takes over in the "safe spaces" we created by the passports.

I had to give my doctor permission to tell the TF Comd when I hurt my knee what actually was wrong, but somehow it was legal to order everyone to fill out their status on MonitorMass? The end was justifiable, but the means was just garbage staff work designed to meet a political goal whether it was legal or not. Now the Federal Court can figure it out.


----------



## McG (16 Dec 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> An order that made you attest to medical data, so they can get around actually using the QR&O to order you to get vaccinated.


You realize that every member of the CAF has been ordered to get vaccinated, right? The attestation is not a mechanism to “circumvent” or avoid giving that order, because the order has been given. The attestation gets around our hang-up of not sharing medical file information for chain of command decisions, and enforcing an order is a chain of command (not medical) function.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Dec 2021)

Really? The directive has a while lot of implied statements and references everything except NDA 126 (misidentified this as a QR&O earlier). You would think ordering everyone to get vaccinated would have referenced the NDA that makes the order lawful, but if you're being sneaky to try to keep this out of court then I guess you wouldn't.


----------



## McG (16 Dec 2021)

S126 of the NDA describes a service offence. I am not tracking any intent on the part of the CDS or the institution to enforce this order through the military justice system, so that would not be a relevant reference to an order that will be managed via administrative review.


----------



## QV (16 Dec 2021)

McG said:


> S126 of the NDA describes a service offence. I am not tracking any intent on the part of the CDS or the institution to enforce this order through the military justice system, so that would not be a relevant reference to an order that will be managed via administrative review.


Right. They did it this way to avoid court hearings. 

They can punch an admin process through without having to consider someone's rights. "Its your choice"... which would be true if there was no coercion.


----------



## McG (16 Dec 2021)

No. They are going this way because disciplinary powers of punishment are an inappropriate tool to enforce an order that directs people to become compliant with a condition of employment. Fines, detention, imprisonment, extra drill & training, reprimands, etc are all inappropriate tools.

For years, we have had Admin Review as a way to end people employment over matters that do not belong in the disciplinary system. Every employer has administrative processes to end the employment of persons who have become unfit for their job. This is not some nefarious scheme to avoid Courts Martial and summary trials; this is recognition that the disciplinary system is not designed with the tools to remedy non-compliance.

Also, the administrative processes do have to consider members’ rights. Your assertion otherwise is nonsense.


----------



## QV (16 Dec 2021)

_The mass experimental vaccine campaign, employment vax mandates, and restrictions on liberty seem to be doing the trick. 

The Pfizer CEO said we should keep the jabs coming, lets do that then. We'll just redefine what is considered "vaccinated".   

And nobody wants or needs any sort of tribunal on this, just defer this to a management decision and carry on. There is definitely nothing of concern here, and as for our decision makers; there is no prior history of deceit and they can all be fully trusted to act in the citizen's best interests. 

Just take the jab(s), stay restricted, and shut it._


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> _The mass experimental vaccine campaign, employment vax mandates, and restrictions on liberty seem to be doing the trick.
> 
> The Pfizer CEO said we should keep the jabs coming, lets do that then. We'll just redefine what is considered "vaccinated".
> 
> ...


Ah yes! The “experimental” argument.


----------



## brihard (16 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Right. They did it this way to avoid court hearings.
> 
> They can punch an admin process through without having to consider someone's rights. "Its your choice"... which would be true if there was no coercion.


Tel us you don’t understand the concept of “judicial review” without telling us you don’t understand the concept of “judicial review”.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Dec 2021)

For those legal experts here, if the case goes against the CAF, would there be wider implications to current policies, QR&O's, etc...?


----------



## Weinie (16 Dec 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> An order that made you attest to medical data, so they can get around actually using the QR&O to order you to get vaccinated. Just needed to have the Surgeon General of the CAF make COVID vaccination a baseline requirement and let the medical system boot people who would DAG Red. That would take too long though. They've also now just lost their key justification in that unvaccinated pers are a threat to force, as we have large outbreaks within the vaccinated CAF community. The data never supported vaccine mandates/passports, clearly they're not working as Decepticon variant takes over in the "safe spaces" we created by the passports.
> 
> I had to give my doctor permission to tell the TF Comd when I hurt my knee what actually was wrong, but somehow it was legal to order everyone to fill out their status on MonitorMass? The end was justifiable, but the means was just garbage staff work designed to meet a political goal whether it was legal or not. Now the Federal Court can figure it out.


If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> _The mass experimental vaccine campaign, employment vax mandates, and restrictions on liberty seem to be doing the trick.
> 
> The Pfizer CEO said we should keep the jabs coming, lets do that then. We'll just redefine what is considered "vaccinated".
> 
> ...


Haven't you run out of tinfoil yet?


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2021)

IMO this is a "dick" move. Don't want to take a vaccine? Release forthwith please.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Dec 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Haven't you run out of tinfoil yet?


Hey, cmon now, you can go with the 'made in Canada' high quality aluminum foil to reduce your carbon footprint. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you can't be green.

Best of luck to these future Darwin award nominees; if the CAF can have universality of service standards, requiring a vaccine during a global pandemic (which is also a mandatory travel requirement) is a no brainer. If you want full body autonomy, go get a job that doesn't tell you what to wear, what kind of haircut you can have and if you have to shave (which eliminates a lot of employers). You can't even get on federal properties without proof of vaccination as a contractor, so not even a chance of a second career doing CAF support.


----------



## FJAG (16 Dec 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> For those legal experts here, if the case goes against the CAF, would there be wider implications to current policies, QR&O's, etc...?


I haven't seen the application so have no idea how far reaching their claims are but in short: I really see no effect on anything here other than, in the worst possible outcome, an injunction barring the CAF from taking whatever administrative actions are being taken or considered against these four individuals. That might possibly also halt similar actions against other individuals in similar circumstances.

IMHO their case will fail.

🍻


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Dec 2021)

While the cases that deal with the CAF have not yet been decided, a similar action in regard to the vaccine mandate for the core Public Service including RCMP was addressed earlier this month.





__





						Wojdan v. Canada (Attorney General) - Federal Court
					






					decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
				




In the justice's analysis he refers to another decision.



> [35] Second, as Justice Akbarali explained in _TTC_, the Applicants have mischaracterized the harm at issue. The harm the Applicants may suffer is being placed on unpaid leave, or being terminated from employment, if they remain unvaccinated. They are not being forced to get vaccinated; they are being forced to choose between getting vaccinated and continuing to have an income on the one hand, or remaining unvaccinated and losing their income on the other (_TTC_ at para 50, citing _Lachance et al c Procureur général du Québec_, November 15, 2021, Court No 500-17-118565-210) at para. 144 [_Lachance_]). Put simply, a vaccine mandate does not cause irreparable harm because it does not force vaccination.



And the conclusion - dismissed


> [39] The Applicants have not demonstrated that this Court should exercise any residual discretion it may have to stay the operation of the Vaccination Policy for all members of the core public administration. Nor have they demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted. The motion must therefore be refused on the grounds that the Applicants have not met the criteria of establishing a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.
> 
> [40] As alternative relief, the Applicants ask this Court to stay the operation of the Vaccination Policy for them individually, pending the exhaustion of remedies available through the grievance process. However, the failure of the Applicants to demonstrate a serious issue or irreparable harm precludes the granting of injunctive relief, either for them as individuals or as representatives of the core public administration (_Lavergne-Poitras_ at para 101). The alternative relief must also be denied.
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2021)

Yup. Any monetary costs could ultimately be compensated through da games awarded in court were they to prevail legally. They won’t, but if they did, it could.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2021)

I wonder if the booster will be mandated as well.


----------



## Furniture (17 Dec 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I wonder if the booster will be mandated as well.


The last message from the Surgeon General definitely seemed to be hinting at it, particularly once Health Canada decides a booster is the new "fully vaccinated".


----------



## Zoomie (17 Dec 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I wonder if the booster will be mandated as well.


Damn right it will - Moderna announced today that 2 jabs wasn’t very effective against Omnicron.  

Hep B needs three jabs - if we need to keep boosting every year to eradicate this virus, sobeit.


----------



## QV (17 Dec 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Damn right it will - Moderna announced today that 2 jabs wasn’t very effective against Omnicron.
> 
> Hep B needs three jabs - if we need to keep boosting every year to eradicate this virus, sobeit.


Eradicate it... like influenza or other coronavirus'?  It's still amusing to me a lot of you think it is a sound COA to take uptake advice on a product from those who stand to profit from that product.


----------



## QV (17 Dec 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Haven't you run out of tinfoil yet?


Nothing I said is fiction.


----------



## mariomike (17 Dec 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Hep B needs three jabs - if we need to keep boosting every year to eradicate this virus, sobeit.



Sounds like eradicating Covid-19 may be possible. 









						What Will It Take to Eradicate COVID-19?
					

A group of New Zealand researchers say we shouldn’t rule out the “possibility of eradicating” COVID-19 from the world.




					www.healthline.com


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Nothing I said is fiction.


Got a source?


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Eradicate it... like influenza or other coronavirus'?  It's still amusing to me a lot of you think it is a sound COA to take uptake advice on a product from those who stand to profit from that product.


You mean scientists with trial results, which get peer reviewed and then assessed by Health Canada specialists?

The majority of people work in for-profit businesses, doesn't mean they are wrong, and there are very real health and financial implications if the current vaccinations don't protect against different variants. But have a merry Alcan Christmas I guess.


----------



## dimsum (17 Dec 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> But have a merry Alcan Christmas I guess.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2021)

mariomike said:


> Sounds like eradicating Covid-19 may be possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As far as I know and I admit I don’t know much is that viruses mutate and we develop some immunity. 

There are still outbreaks of the plague in some areas of the world


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> ... a lot of you think it is a sound COA to take uptake advice on a product from those who stand to profit from that product.


And yet, over how many years have we had to get a slightly different vaccination against the flu every year because of different variants & combinations without people questioning the science?  I guess all that was incorrect, too?


----------



## QV (17 Dec 2021)

This may sound strange to many of you, tinfoil even, but I want assurances these kinds of things aren't going to happen again:


			Pfizer received the largest fine in US history in 2009 for 2.3 Billion for “bribing doctors and suppressing adverse trial results” – Investment Watch
		









						Malaria drug causes brain damage that mimics PTSD: case study
					

A service member was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder but instead was found to have brain damage caused by a malaria drug.




					www.militarytimes.com
				




And the present situation and how everything has been handled makes situations like the above much more likely.


----------



## QV (17 Dec 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> And yet, over how many years have we had to get a slightly different vaccination against the flu every year because of different variants & combinations without people questioning the science?  I guess all that was incorrect, too?


And how has that worked out for influenza? In case you missed it, in 2020 influenza was practically eradicated... was this due to masks or social distancing?  It certainly wasn't due to 40 years of flu vaccine uptake....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2021)

While being vaccinated appears to help with the impact of Omicron, it won't help the spread, the bad news is it's going to spread rapidly, the good news is the spread appears to peak quickly and drop.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> It's still amusing to me a lot of you think it is a sound COA to take uptake advice on a product from those who stand to profit from that product.


So you buy all your food, supplements, medications, exercise advice from non-profit organizations??    Hmm, didn't know there were that many....


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Dec 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So you buy all your food, supplements, medications, exercise advice from non-profit organizations??    Hmm, didn't know there were that many....


Yeah, I've wanted to comment on here and FB: Name me *one* company that doesn't operate for profits.  

But, all those "alternative" medicines are free, right??  

A major funder of the anti-vaccine movement has made millions selling natural health products


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> And yet, over how many years have we had to get a slightly different vaccination against the flu every year because of different variants & combinations without people questioning the science?  I guess all that was incorrect, too?


Didn't  you hear. We made the flu disappear. Nobody has caught or died of the flu in two years. No community infections, no social transfer. It's gone, disappeared. Don't  worry, be happy! 🙄






😁😁🤙


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Dec 2021)

PMedMoe said:


> Yeah, I've wanted to comment on here and FB: Name me *one* company that doesn't operate for profits.
> 
> But, all those "alternative" medicines are free, right??
> 
> A major funder of the anti-vaccine movement has made millions selling natural health products


I've heard some complain about what the free market has been doing re:  companies making tons of money from vaccines during high demand who also say, "we saw nursing shortages pre-covid because of socialized medicine."  So the private sector would have done a better job in health HR and not wanted to make a buck under higher demand?  Just like gasoline prices go down when more people buy, right?


----------



## RangerRay (17 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


>


No no no!   A proper tinfoil hat does not have a point on it!  That will amplify your brainwaves to outer space, not protect them!


----------



## dimsum (17 Dec 2021)

RangerRay said:


> No no no!   A proper tinfoil hat does not have a point on it!  That will amplify your brainwaves to outer space, not protect them!


I apologize.  Proper Belgique beret forming for all Alcan headdress forthwith.


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Didn't  you hear. We made the flu disappear. Nobody has caught or died of the flu in two years. No community infections, no social transfer. It's gone, disappeared. Don't  worry, be happy! 🙄
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While you’re obviously being kind of silly about this for dramatic effect, you’re not that far off. Influenza in humans has almost disappeared for the past year and a half; it’s been out-competed by COVID.

It’s funny. It’s almost like when all of a sudden all of society starts taking the hygiene, droplet and aerosol precautions that public health always tells us to do in flu season, we successfully stop flu from gaining any real traction. Neat, eh?

Unfortunately, Influenza has natural reservoirs in agricultural stocks, and evolves and moves to humans from there, so it’ll be back. But yes, that may give us a sense of what living with COVID may look like once we’re past the point of hospital capacity being under threat.


----------



## Remius (17 Dec 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> I've heard some complain about what the free market has been doing re:  companies making tons of money from vaccines during high demand who also say, "we saw nursing shortages pre-covid because of socialized medicine."  So the private sector would have done a better job in health HR and not wanted to make a buck under higher demand?  Just like gasoline prices go down when more people buy, right?


Some people hate capitalism.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> And yet, over how many years have we had to get a slightly different vaccination against the flu every year because of different variants & combinations without people questioning the science?  I guess all that was incorrect, too?



I've never had to get the flu shot.  In fact I've never taken it.  It's my understanding it's never been a mandatory vaccination.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2021)

I think it's funny that anyone who questions the vaccinations is some kind of heretic and social pariah. 

Politicians are liars and corrupt, big pharma is notoriously corrupt and Science is proven wrong all the time by more science, and they've made big mistakes with medicines before.  But we are supposed to be unquestioning in the sudden virtue of these three groups.  Most of whom stand to profit in various ways from our obedience and consumption.

I mean I have my shots, because I have a young family and I can't afford to go with out a job.  But I can understand other people's trepidation.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Dec 2021)

I know it's typically bad form to quote yourself, but here's what I wrote on influenza earlier in the year:



ModlrMike said:


> As someone who provides direct patient care in an ER, let me fill in some gaps:
> 
> 
> There are several reasons why influenza is perceived to be not as bad as previous years. Firstly, the infection control methods are working; masks, handwashing, and distance work. Secondly, the uptake for the flu vaccine, at least in Canada, was greatly increased this year. Thirdly, the R0 value globally for influenza is approximately 1.3, year over year. With Covid, it's currently 5.3. This means that each person infected with flu might subsequently infect 1.3 other persons, where one Covid case might create 5.3 others. It's important to note that the R0 value can change based on a number of conditions, and I would expect that the R0 value for influenza for this year will be less than 1.0. Finally, we're not testing as agressively for influenza as we might have in the past. Partly because we're focused on Covid, and partly because influenza will respond to the same treatments as Covid. Currently the R0 value in Winnipeg is estimated at 2.6.



I would expect the R0 value for Covid to increase given that early data for Omicron shows that it replicates 70 times faster in the bronchi than the other variants, thereby explaining its increased transmissability. Further, it appears to replicate 10 times more slowly in lung tissue, which may shed light on why it looks like it may cause less severe disease.

If we pick up our socks on the infection control front again, then it would be reasonable to suggest that we would once again see less influenza this year.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think it's funny that anyone who questions the vaccinations is some kind of heretic and social pariah.
> 
> Politicians are liars and corrupt, big pharma is notoriously corrupt and Science is proven wrong all the time by more science, and they've made big mistakes with medicines before.  But we are supposed to be unquestioning in the sudden virtue of these three groups.  Most of whom stand to profit in various ways from our obedience and consumption.
> 
> I mean I have my shots, because I have a young family and I can't afford to go with out a job.  But I can understand other people's trepidation.


For the first time in history, the ineffectiveness of a vaccine is being blamed on those that won't  take it.


----------



## Remius (17 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> For the first time in history, the ineffectiveness of a vaccine is being blamed on those that won't  take it.


Edit: Withdrawn statement


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Dec 2021)

Remius said:


> Some people hate capitalism.


When capitalism is fed by greed at the expense of regular people….


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> For the first time in history, the ineffectiveness of a vaccine is being blamed on those that won't  take it.



Let's also not forget its most likely poor science that got us into this mess... Wuhan Laboratory I'm looking at you.


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Let's also not forget its most likely poor science that got us into this mess... Wuhan Laboratory I'm looking at you.


Very possibly so. That doesn't mean the completely separate and distinct research teams that have developed vaccines are malevolent or ineffective.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2021)

brihard said:


> Very possibly so. That doesn't mean the completely separate and distinct research teams that have developed vaccines are malevolent or ineffective.



I didn't say that.  My point is the all holy alter of science and medicine is as fallable and open to corruption as any other human endeavor. 

Conduct yourself accordingly.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Dec 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Hep B needs three jabs - if we need to keep boosting every year to eradicate this virus, sobeit.


Those in the restaurant/food handling industry have had to get Hep B boosters every 5 years, never heard complaining about that. I got it twice in my 12 years as a chef.


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I didn't say that.  My point is the all holy alter of science and medicine is as fallable and open to corruption as any other human endeavor.
> 
> Conduct yourself accordingly.


It's not holy, but it's the best we got, and overall it does pretty well. Don't forget that the researchers, executives, and financiers behind the vaccine projects are all as impacted by what this is doing to society as the rest of us. They're getting their vaccines too, and they certainly know more about it than you or I.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2021)

brihard said:


> It's not holy, but it's the best we got, and overall it does pretty well. Don't forget that the researchers, executives,a nd financiers behind the vaccine projects are all as impacted by what this is doing to society as the rest of us. They're getting their vaccines too, and they certainly know more about it than you or I.



I'm quite sure I've seen enough evidence that falls in the "rules for thee but not for me" category in the last two years.  Some of it first hand. 

I agree it's all we got.  Where we disagree is you trust their motives, I don't.  I have no problems believing big pharma is interested in keeping this constantly moving goal post we call vaccinated, moving.  It makes them Uber dollars.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


> I apologize.  Proper Belgique beret forming for all Alcan headdress forthwith.


I keep wanting to correct people to Rio-Tinto Alcan, but then I realized they started use the name for tin foil products.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


> I apologize.  Proper Belgique beret forming for all Alcan headdress forthwith.


Do you have an example of that? We'd love to see it....

On the COVID subject Manitoba will be under a semi lockdown over Christmas - AGAIN. Hockey tournaments - cancelled.

NHL Cancelled? NO - the arena can only have 50% capacity. 

I'm calling bullshit on this one. We - 76% of us here have done what has been asked of us and 24% refuse to do what I think is right. Mind you I'm close to being a fossil anyways.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> ... We - 76% of us here have done what has been asked of us and 24% refuse to do what I think is right ...


Careful, some may think you're turning some people into ....


Halifax Tar said:


> ... some kind of heretic(s) and social pariah(s).


😉 


OldSolduer said:


> ... On the COVID subject Manitoba will be under a semi lockdown over Christmas - AGAIN. Hockey tournaments - cancelled.
> 
> NHL Cancelled? NO - the arena can only have 50% capacity ....


Sadly, money talks - and can twist arms ....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Dec 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm quite sure I've seen enough evidence that falls in the "rules for thee but not for me" category in the last two years.  Some of it first hand.
> 
> I agree it's all we got.  Where we disagree is you trust their motives, I don't.  I have no problems believing big pharma is interested in keeping this constantly moving goal post we call vaccinated, moving.  It makes them Uber dollars.


The Opiate Crisis would like their "pain management" pills back.  Or how about Mefloquine and Agent Orange? No never happened right 🤣

Never let a good crisis go to waste is what they say.

I am skeptical about everything the Government or anyone else tells me.  I am vaccinated and I think people in the CAF should have to be vaccinated but I don't believe in vaccine passports or mandatory vaccinations for those not subject to unlimited liability.  I think people should be able to make their own choices about what they put in to their bodies and it's nobody elses business.

That being said, if I was a civilian, I would get a vaccine ATT but it would be my choice and it would be nobody elses business whether I was vaccinated or not.

The Government is the type of organization that will break your leg and rather than apologize, hand you a set of crappy wooden crutches and lament why you aren't thanking them for giving you crutches?


----------



## QV (18 Dec 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think it's funny that anyone who questions the vaccinations is some kind of heretic and social pariah.
> 
> Politicians are liars and corrupt, big pharma is notoriously corrupt and Science is proven wrong all the time by more science, and they've made big mistakes with medicines before.  But we are supposed to be unquestioning in the sudden virtue of these three groups.  Most of whom stand to profit in various ways from our obedience and consumption.
> 
> I mean I have my shots, because I have a young family and I can't afford to go with out a job.  But I can understand other people's trepidation.


Well said. Far more eloquent then my drive by smears. You’ve captured my sentiment exactly.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Well said. Far more eloquent then my drive by smears. You’ve captured my sentiment exactly.


You might get a bit further if you didn't take a position of hostility tbh.  

Attack the idea, not the person.  That goes for everyone in this thread though.

It's a deeply divisive issue.


----------



## QV (18 Dec 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> So you buy all your food, supplements, medications, exercise advice from non-profit organizations??    Hmm, didn't know there were that many....


As expected, the point sails about six miles over your head. To help you along, consider this question; what other product am I mandated to ingest, consume, or inject at the threat of losing my livelihood? And consider that those who make it are telling us how much we must take.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> As expected, the point sails about six miles over your head. To help you along, consider this question; what other product am I mandated to ingest, consume, or inject at the threat of losing my livelihood? And consider that those who make it are telling us how much we must take.


Don't forget the immunity from prosecution if/when babies with three eyes start showing up.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Dec 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> Don't forget the immunity from prosecution if/when babies with three eyes start showing up.


If the  Baby's third eye is in the back of their head, we might have a future NHLer on our hands.  Win-Win for those lucky parents!


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You might get a bit further if you didn't take a position of hostility tbh.
> 
> Attack the idea, not the person.  That goes for everyone in this thread though.
> 
> It's a deeply divisive issue.



I find alot of people these days let their opinions and views become a part of their identity. 

When their views or opinions are challanged they take it personally and its as if their integrity itself is being attacked.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Dec 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I find alot of people these days let their opinions and views become a part of their identity.
> 
> When their views or opinions are challanged they take it personally and its as if their integrity itself is being attacked.


This.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Dec 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I find alot of people these days let their opinions and views become a part of their identity.
> 
> When their views or opinions are challanged they take it personally and its as if their integrity itself is being attacked.


Yes, I have differing views then a lot of people on here concerning this and many other things.  Doesn't mean I don't respect them or don't think their opinion isn't valuable.

A good friend of mine who was my roommate in University is basically the biggest hippie on the planet.  He did terribly in the Military (surprised surprise) and we differ in views on basically everything.

He is a good friend though and if he called and needed something or I needed something, I know he would drop everything he was doing and do it.  That's what a good friend is.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> If the  Baby's third eye is in the back of their head, we might have a future NHLer on our hands.  Win-Win for those lucky parents!



Only if they remove the mandatory helmet rule - otherwise, that eye is covered.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Dec 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Only if they remove the mandatory helmet rule - otherwise, that eye is covered.


Put a visor in the back of the helmet?


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2021)

#LeadingChange - Mastered.


----------



## mariomike (18 Dec 2021)

All of these pages upon pages, in this and other threads about mandated vaccination, remind me of one single sentence I read on here,



ballz said:


> 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.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Put a visor in the back of the helmet?


CCM, Jofa and Bauer agree with thi$!!!


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Dec 2021)

Aaaaaand there it is. Big Hockey is colluding with Big Pharma to squeeze more money out of families.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2021)

Wait til people spout two extra arms from the third booster, and need an extra set of gloves, an extra pair of elbow pads, and a second stick.

#InvestInAlcan


----------



## McG (18 Dec 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think people should be able to make their own choices about what they put in to their bodies and it's nobody elses business.


And when those people, who were medically able but decided not to get vaccinated, collectively are the ones crashing the healthcare system (again) they should be free of consequences for the damages their decision caused?

Choosing not to get the vaccine risks the lives of other people. So, I guess “my body my choice” only applies to what comes out of a needle. If my choice impacts my body and your body, I only have to consider my wants and don’t let your health and safety weigh on my wants?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2021)

McG said:


> And when those people, who were medically able but decided not to get vaccinated, collectively are the ones crashing the healthcare system (again) they should be free of consequences for the damages their decision caused?
> 
> Choosing not to get the vaccine risks the lives of other people. So, I guess “my body my choice” only applies to what comes out of a needle. If my choice impacts my body and your body, I only have to consider my wants and don’t let your health and safety weigh on my wants?


Yet, more and more it's the vaccinated who are becoming infected and hospitalized. So what is your call now that the vaccinated are spreading covid. Your decision to vaccinate is putting the unvaccinated at risk. Six of one, half dozen of the other. But this is exactly the point, and you are guilty of demonizing those who don't agree with your stance. If your a great believer of the media and hype, perhaps you should be looking elsewhere. The hype says it's a never ending pandemic and we'll never beat it. So, instead of blaming people for flooding the system, perhaps it's the system that needs to expand to cover this new misery that will overtake us all. I see hospital overloads as an infrastructure problem, not a people problem. I'll tell you how bad it is here. We're in a provincial hot spot. Yet we are taking patients from all over the place. London, Toronto and even at one point Alberta, yet our LHINs keep saying we are over capacity and have to shut down all small businesses and restaurants, but any big players can keep playing. If you want to blame the unvaccinated, you should social distance yourself from them. They are under zero obligation to bend to your wishes or rules. Perhaps you can all wear a big red V patch so we can stay away from you.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Yet, more and more it's the vaccinated who are becoming infected and *hospitalized*.



Not in Ontario: Hospitalizations


----------



## brihard (18 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Yet, more and more it's the vaccinated who are becoming infected and hospitalized. So what is your call now that the vaccinated are spreading covid. Your decision to vaccinate is putting the unvaccinated at risk.


Facts are not on your side. Yes, the vaccinated are indeed still registering infections, at about 80% the rate of the unvaccinated. But hospitalizations and especially ICU admissions show a very significant difference.



From today’s stats in Ontario, among those testing positive for COVID, the unvaccinated are 5.3x more likely to be in hospital, and 8.8x more likely to be in ICU.



> I see hospital overloads as an infrastructure problem, not a people problem.



Some infrastructure _is_ people. A bed in an ICU is meaningless without doctors,  ruses, and respiratory therapists to staff it. A properly staffed ICU needs 4.6 nurse FTEs. And of course, hospital crowding by its very definition must be a people problem when you drill down:



In terms of the burden COVID places on hospitals, 2/3 of COVID ICU patients are unvaccinated, despite the unvaccinated being less than 24% of the population.

By all means assert and exercise your right not to be vaccinated. That’s your choice. It doesn’t take away from the fact that the unvaccinated pose the bulk of the threat to the capacity of the healthcare system. And are the bulk of people suffering through weeks of ICU and potentially dying.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Yet, more and more it's the vaccinated who are becoming infected and hospitalized. So what is your call now that the vaccinated are spreading covid.


Sure but when looking at ratios, there are far more unvaccinated people hospitalized or in ICU than vaccinated.  To illustrate my point, I’ll use an extreme.  If 90 people are vaccinated and 10 are not, and 5 vaccinated and 5 unvaccinated are in ICU, when looking at absolute numbers, it seems like the vaccine doesn’t work but, 10% or the population make up 50% of the patients in ICU. Yes, you can still spread COVID even when vaccinated but when infected, those vaccinated fare much better than unvaccinated. The effects are far less severe.


----------



## Remius (18 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Your decision to vaccinate is putting the unvaccinated at risk.


🤣🤣🤣


----------



## MJP (18 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Your decision to vaccinate is putting the unvaccinated at risk.


🤣🤣🤣

Ahh the reverse uno card


----------



## FJAG (18 Dec 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Sure but when looking at ratios, there are far more unvaccinated people hospitalized or in ICU than vaccinated.  To illustrate my point, I’ll use an extreme.  If 90 people are vaccinated and 10 are not, and 5 vaccinated and 5 unvaccinated are in ICU, when looking at absolute numbers, it seems like the vaccine doesn’t work but, 10% or the population make up 50% of the patients in ICU. Yes, you can still spread COVID even when vaccinated but when infected, those vaccinated fare much better than unvaccinated. The effects are far less severe.



This!






🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Dec 2021)

Also the fact that vaccinated numbers are increasing, basic mathematics tell me cases in hospital will grow too


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Dec 2021)

McG said:


> And when those people, who were medically able but decided not to get vaccinated, collectively are the ones crashing the healthcare system (again) they should be free of consequences for the damages their decision caused?
> 
> *Choosing not to get the vaccine risks the lives of other people*. So, I guess “my body my choice” only applies to what comes out of a needle. If my choice impacts my body and your body, I only have to consider my wants and don’t let your health and safety weigh on my wants?


Couple of points for you to consider:

1.  "The healthcare System is Collapsing?" 

When exactly did the healthcare system collapse?  It never has, even during the worst of the outbreak.  Hospitals are always operating at near capacity anyways, there have been studies that have shown hospital capacity was actually lower in Ontario and elsewhere at certain points in time prior to COVID.

Don't believe me?  Well google it and find out.

2.  "Choosing not to get the vaccine risks the lives of people?"

How exactly does it do that?

The vaccines aren't designed to prevent transmission, that's a common misconception, they are designed to lessen the severity of the disease and strengthen the body's immune response.

The virus is still transmitted in vaccinated people it's just that most of them don't notice because they no longer get sick from the disease and never get tested.

*Not getting vaccinated risks the lives of other non-vaccinated people*.  That's a good thing, it means they will learn that they should get vaccinated due to the consequences of them getting sick from their immune system not being able to deal with the disease.

Long term, that's a huge step forward for the pro-vaccine segment of society.

I'm pro-vaccination, but also pro freedom of choice.  If people want to get something they will get it, if they don't, well that's their choice.  They, after all, still pay taxes and medical insurance like the rest of us.

Coercion is a terrible strategy and creates division and problems elsewhere.  It's not worth the cost.


----------



## ballz (18 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> As expected, the point sails about six miles over your head. To help you along, consider this question; *what other product am I mandated to ingest, consume, or inject at the threat of losing my livelihood?* And consider that those who make it are telling us how much we must take.



You're a CAF member right? Then the answer is "whatever ones you are told," including lead bullets fed to you by a machine gun. It's called unlimited liability, if you didn't get the brief if basic training, consider yourself lucky that you've been collecting a pay cheque for all these years without having to reconcile why.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Dec 2021)

ballz said:


> You're a CAF member right? Then the answer is "whatever ones you are told," including led bullets fed to you by a machine gun. It's called unlimited liability, if you didn't get the brief if basic training, consider yourself lucky that you've been collecting a pay cheque for all these years without having to reconcile why.


This I agree with 100%.  Unlimited Liability is sacrosanct.  That doesn't extend to the civilian population though IMO.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Dec 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Couple of points for you to consider:
> 
> 1.  "The healthcare System is Collapsing?"
> 
> ...


Surgeries were cancelled because doctors and nurses were busy in the ICU.  One of my friends’ father life-saving surgery was cancelled, re-scheduled and cancelled again (and he eventually died) because the surgeons were otherwise busy treating COVID patients. I would call that a collapse.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Dec 2021)

When the normal standard of care can no longer be provided due to a situation, we have collapsed.


----------



## McG (18 Dec 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> 1.  "The healthcare System is Collapsing?"
> 
> When exactly did the healthcare system collapse? It never has, even during the worst of the outbreak. Hospitals are always operating at near capacity anyways, there have been studies that have shown hospital capacity was actually lower in Ontario and elsewhere at certain points in time prior to COVID.
> 
> Don't believe me? Well google it and find out.


The term I used was “crashing” but, call it what you want, the system has failed when a province needs CAF and/or ICRC to rescue its overwhelmed resources or to evacuate patients to other cities or provinces. When life saving “elective” surgeries are being cancelled to accommodate assholes who are deathly ill of their own volition, that is also a failing of the system. We have seen such problems throughout the pandemic, but it has been the anti-vax crowd who were the drives of such failures over the past year.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> 2. "Choosing not to get the vaccine risks the lives of people?"
> 
> How exactly does it do that?


When the healthcare system is overwhelmed by those who chose not to vaccinate then it is not able to look after other people who suffer life threatening illness or injury nor is it able to to properly support those who are unable to vaccinate. The system compensâtes by cancelling procedures that are “less urgent” but these are still life saving procedures and Canadians have died because of these cancelations.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> *Not getting vaccinated risks the lives of other non-vaccinated people*. That's a good thing, it means they will learn that they should get vaccinated due to the consequences of them getting sick from their immune system not being able to deal with the disease.


???Canadians gambling with the lives of other Canadians is a good thing??? Did you really mean to say that?! Should I need to see my neighbour die before I take the easy steps to protect myself and my community?


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This I agree with 100%.  Unlimited Liability is sacrosanct.  That doesn't extend to the civilian population though IMO.


We’re here to defend democracy not practice it. CAF members need to remember that


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Dec 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> We’re here to defend democracy not practice it. CAF members need to remember that


I would argue we the CAF are here to defend the Canadian people, not democracy. If it was the democratic process we were protecting, then we should of pulled a turkey, and have a coup several times in our history because of governments doing things contrary to the principles of democracy. We haven't though, instead no matter how far any one government slides to be more secretive, or more corrupt, we let it all slide because we get to vote every 4 years or so.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Yet, more and more it's the vaccinated who are becoming infected and hospitalized. So what is your call now that the vaccinated are spreading covid. Your decision to vaccinate is putting the unvaccinated at risk. Six of one, half dozen of the other. But this is exactly the point, and you are guilty of demonizing those who don't agree with your stance. If your a great believer of the media and hype, perhaps you should be looking elsewhere. The hype says it's a never ending pandemic and we'll never beat it. So, instead of blaming people for flooding the system, perhaps it's the system that needs to expand to cover this new misery that will overtake us all. I see hospital overloads as an infrastructure problem, not a people problem. I'll tell you how bad it is here. We're in a provincial hot spot. Yet we are taking patients from all over the place. London, Toronto and even at one point Alberta, yet our LHINs keep saying we are over capacity and have to shut down all small businesses and restaurants, but any big players can keep playing. If you want to blame the unvaccinated, you should social distance yourself from them. They are under zero obligation to bend to your wishes or rules. Perhaps you can all wear a big red V patch so we can stay away from you.


Sorry for the semi sarcastic response but it's exactly how vaxx zealots, even some here, sound to us anti mandate, anti passport, anti lockdown crowd.  Vaxx zealots, the ones that want quarantine facilities, mandated treatment with experimental medical substances and a tiered social system based on your contribution to the state. Your vaxx passport is your exclusive country club membership card into your exclusive group who get to frequent restaurants, movies, sports and as NB has done, buy groceries. That's the shit that divides us. I don't give a shit if you have the shot or not. That's  your business, not mine or anyone else's.
Here's  the problem, there's  no discussion, no questions. Just a varied levels of government adherence and dogma on  one hand and everything from those that take the jab but only did it to stay employed, stay housed, fed and warm. All the way down to those that would invoke Waco. How the hell did we get to spineless politicians who don't, want to make a decision. Instead they give the running of the country's economy, industry, the social safety net over to a bunch of unelected medical czars?


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Dec 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I find alot of people these days let their opinions and views become a part of their identity.
> 
> When their views or opinions are challanged they take it personally and its as if their integrity itself is being attacked.



I'm on a year long French course... My fragile ego has been smashed into an oblivion since Aug hahaha I'm very comfortable being told what I am saying is wrong lol 

Some jest for humor, but I fully agree


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Sorry for the semi sarcastic response but it's exactly how vaxx zealots, even some here, sound to us anti mandate, anti passport, anti lockdown crowd.  Vaxx zealots, the ones that want quarantine facilities, mandated treatment with experimental medical substances and a tiered social system based on your contribution to the state. Your vaxx passport is your exclusive country club membership card into your exclusive group who get to frequent restaurants, movies, sports and as NB has done, buy groceries. That's the shit that divides us. I don't give a shit if you have the shot or not. That's  your business, not mine or anyone else's.
> Here's  the problem, there's  no discussion, no questions. Just a varied levels of government adherence and dogma on  one hand and everything from those that take the jab but only did it to stay employed, stay housed, fed and warm. All the way down to those that would invoke Waco. How the hell did we get to spineless politicians who don't, want to make a decision. Instead they give the running of the country's economy, industry, the social safety net over to a bunch of unelected medical czars?


Well first  I would rather have professionals run whatever shit show is happening and second, really?......politicians long handed over running the country to a bunch of unelected judges, so why would this be different?


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2021)

McG said:


> When life saving “elective” surgeries are being cancelled to accommodate assholes who are deathly ill of their own volition, that is also a failing of the system.



Regarding surgical delay,



> "These vaccinated patients are directly harmed when hospitals use all their resources to care for the many unvaccinated patients with COVID-19,” he writes.  “For example, delaying breast cancer surgery by just four weeks increases the relative risk of death from the disease by 8 percent.”







__





						Hospitals Have Ethical Obligation to Care for Unvaccinated Severe COVID-19 Patients
					

American Thoracic Society




					www.thoracic.org


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Here's the problem, there's no discussion, no questions. Just a varied levels of government adherence and dogma on one hand and everything from those that take the jab but only did it to stay employed, stay housed, fed and warm. All the way down to those that would invoke Waco. How the hell did we get to spineless politicians who don't, want to make a decision. Instead they give the running of the country's economy, industry, the social safety net over to a bunch of unelected medical czars?



I'm not sure why you think that the politicians, bureaucrats and scientists involved in this are a homogeneous block of like-minded individuals who do not discuss and debate the various issues involved. There are clear competing interests here which would put these three disparate groups at different points on the spectrum that runs between absolute monarchy and anarchy. These debates clearly go on and are presented to the public after the decisions are made. One only needs to look at the political controversies going on in the UK over some of these issues. They are present within the political structure of Canada as well.

But this is why we live in a democracy where we elect leaders to make important decisions for the common good for all of us.

The fact that a given decision does not go your way is not a sign that a dictatorship or cabal has set an agenda to suppress the nation or that those making the decision are "spineless". Those who are not joining the "exclusive country club" have made that choice of their own volition. Those of us who choose to be vaccinated are not zealots. No one is calling to invoke Waco. The "shit that divides us" actually comes from the tinfoil conspiracy theories that dominate the social media and that make every issue, no matter how trivial, no matter if extreme left or extreme right, a call to arms. Try to remember that when eighty or ninety percent of the population thinks and acts one way on an issue that is democracy at work. We just had an election and while it didn't go my way, it was an opportunity for the voting public at large to voice their objection to how the government was dealing with this pandemic. Their vote clearly favoured the status quo - only a few anti-vaxxers made it in. 

🍻


----------



## lenaitch (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Sorry for the semi sarcastic response but it's exactly how vaxx zealots, even some here, sound to us anti mandate, anti passport, anti lockdown crowd.  Vaxx zealots, the ones that want quarantine facilities, mandated treatment with experimental medical substances and a tiered social system based on your contribution to the state. Your vaxx passport is your exclusive country club membership card into your exclusive group who get to frequent restaurants, movies, sports and as NB has done, buy groceries. That's the shit that divides us. I don't give a shit if you have the shot or not. That's  your business, not mine or anyone else's.
> Here's  the problem, there's  no discussion, no questions. Just a varied levels of government adherence and dogma on  one hand and everything from those that take the jab but only did it to stay employed, stay housed, fed and warm. All the way down to those that would invoke Waco. How the hell did we get to spineless politicians who don't, want to make a decision. Instead they give the running of the country's economy, industry, the social safety net over to a bunch of unelected medical czars?


And I suppose my driver's licence is my country club membership to drive on public roads and my property title is my country club membership to keep people from living on my land.  It's called participating in a civil society.

I'm not sure I'd be too thrilled with elected politicians attempting to parse medical/scientific data and directing action all on their own, any more than I would having them directing fine-grained  law enforcement or military action.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2021)

lenaitch said:


> And I suppose my driver's licence is my country club membership to drive on public roads and my property title is my country club membership to keep people from living on my land.  It's called participating in a civil society.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd be too thrilled with elected politicians attempting to parse medical/scientific data and directing action all on their own, any more than I would having them directing fine-grained  law enforcement or military action.


Do you need to show your driver's licence to by groceries? This is nothing but a strawman excuse.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Do you need to show your driver's licence to by groceries? This is nothing but a strawman excuse.


Have you had to show a vacc certificate to buy groceries??


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Do you need to show your driver's licence to by groceries? This is nothing but a strawman excuse.


For most people to ‘get’ to a grocery store, yes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2021)

Well, we'll all have to agree to disagree then. Some see sheep, others see wolves. Some see compliance, others see manipulation. A simple read here proves a difference in opinion won't be tolerated. I have questions, opinions and more questions, but because they don't fall within your parameters, I wear tinfoil. Copiously supplied by people here.
I'm not an anti vaxxer. I was likely jabbed before most of you were. I'm anti lockdown, anti mandate, anti vaxx passport. All of which suppress natural immunity forcing people to depend on rushed drugs, not properly tested and $35 billion dollar quarters for the people that brought us the opiod crisis for profit. They killed millions through OD's. They ruined lives, employment, relationships and families for profit. They got caught, convicted and fined for their greedy malfeasance and more cases are still being litigated. Drug companies aren't in the game for humanity, they are there to increase their shareholder's bank accounts, period, bottom line. If somebody doesn't believe there are politicians and medical people out there in high positions, that haven't been given $consideration$ by the drug companies for their co-operation in driving the vaxx narrative, I've got a bridge located on some swamp land I'd like to speak to you about. Go look up thalidomide and then tell me if you don't have concerns about a rushed, untested, experimental drug being pumped into 90% of the population when one of the first things the drug companies sought, and received, was immunity from prosecution when shit goes sideways. The same companies that want their development, test and user trial data sequestered for the next 50 years. Keep sending that tinfoil boys.


Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Have you had to show a vacc certificate to buy groceries??


I don't live in NB.


Good2Golf said:


> For most people to ‘get’ to a grocery store, yes.


Immaterial. You don't need a passport to operate a mode of transportation.... Yet.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Have you had to show a vacc certificate to buy groceries??



Saw this regarding that,









						PolitiFact - Grocery shopping in Canada is possible without COVID-19 vaccination
					

A Facebook video viewed by tens of thousands of people suggested that some Canadians are prohibited from securing food u




					www.politifact.com


----------



## Remius (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't live in NB.





			https://www.newsobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article256551356.htmla
		


And









						PolitiFact - Grocery shopping in Canada is possible without COVID-19 vaccination
					

A Facebook video viewed by tens of thousands of people suggested that some Canadians are prohibited from securing food u




					www.politifact.com
				




So you are fine if in NB.  But Facebook posts and crazy anti vax types are spreading fake news to keep a narrative going.


----------



## kev994 (19 Dec 2021)

mariomike said:


> Saw this regarding that,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So people who get their ‘facts’ off of Facebook are subject to misinformation? _gasp_ I’m shocked! Where can people possibly get unbiased information if not from their lunatic Facebook friends?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2021)

kev994 said:


> So people who get their ‘facts’ off of Facebook are subject to misinformation? _gasp_ I’m shocked! Where can people possibly get unbiased information if not from their lunatic Facebook friends?


New Brunswick, the provincial government gave permission for grocery stores to deny entry to those without a passport. So this isn't really one of your Let Me Google That for You toss away links to impinge on someone's credibility. Has anyone been denied? IDK, but the simple fact some politician mandated this is despicable, no matter what link you google up.

"Malls, *grocery stores*, salons must enforce physical distancing or *may instead require proof of vaccination from all patrons.*"

As reported by your entrusted state media outlet https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-...wick-winter-plan-christmas-shephard-1.6272151, not from Meta.


----------



## Remius (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> New Brunswick, the provincial government gave permission for grocery stores to deny entry to those without a passport. So this isn't really one of your Let Me Google That for You toss away links to impinge on someone's credibility. Has anyone been denied? IDK, but the simple fact some politician mandated this is despicable, no matter what link you google up.
> 
> "Malls, *grocery stores*, salons must enforce physical distancing or *may instead require proof of vaccination from all patrons.*"
> 
> As reported by your entrusted state media outlet https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-...wick-winter-plan-christmas-shephard-1.6272151, not from Meta.


Key word is may not must.  The large chains have already said they won’t do that.  It’s only where physical distancing isn’t possible.  Although I doubt that that will be an issue for most places. 

Relax.  No one is going to starve over the winter.


----------



## brihard (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Do you need to show your driver's licence to by groceries? This is nothing but a strawman excuse.


No you don’t. But you don’t need proof of vaccination buy groceries either. In some places it may be required to _enter_ a grocery store, but there are other accommodation options for groceries including home delivery and curbside pickup. No different from restaurants, really.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2021)

Remius said:


> No one is going to starve over the winter.



If an anti-vaxxer ever starved, or was denied emergency medical service, I believe the lawsuit would be huge.

On the other hand, it may hit them in the wallet with increased rates for health insurance.

Or,  family death benefits.

eg:


> New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority no longer pays a $500,000 death benefit to the families of subway, bus and commuter rail workers who die of covid if the workers were unvaccinated at the time of death.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> New Brunswick, the provincial government gave permission for grocery stores to deny entry to those without a passport. So this isn't really one of your Let Me Google That for You toss away links to impinge on someone's credibility. Has anyone been denied? IDK, but the simple fact some politician mandated this is despicable, no matter what link you google up.
> 
> "Malls, *grocery stores*, salons must enforce physical distancing or *may instead require proof of vaccination from all patrons.*"
> 
> As reported by your entrusted state media outlet https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-...wick-winter-plan-christmas-shephard-1.6272151, not from Meta.



And while I usually don't have many great issues with "entrusted state media", in this instance, whomever wrote the article is incorrect regarding that one detail (or at least that one detail since it was the only one I checked).

From the New Brunswick Government webpage   that detailed the temporary measures in response to arrival of Omicron variant.



> Business / Retail​Level 1​Open with physical distancing of two metres. Business / retail *that do not sell groceries* can require proof of full vaccination for patrons 12 and older.



All condensed on a handy little chart https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Corporate/Promo/COVID19/alertlvls/docs/Alert-Level-Guidance.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Immaterial. You don't need a passport to operate a mode of transportation.... Yet.


No.  Both are permits.  One to operate a transportation device, another to comduct an activity like using a public transportation means or attend a public location that has restrictions on space and ability to wear appropriate face coverings (like when eating/drinking).

Waiting for you or others to point out where a vaccine passport is required to shop in a grocery store…


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> And while I usually don't have many great issues with "entrusted state media", in this instance, whomever wrote the article is incorrect regarding that one detail (or at least that one detail since it was the only one I checked).
> 
> From the New Brunswick Government webpage   that detailed the temporary measures in response to arrival of Omicron variant.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that. So, if our state mandated media is passing false info. I guess citing any media sources as substantiating anything, is suspect. I purposely chose the CBC because of their leftist elite stance and because certain individuals refuse to believe any sources I post. Who knew that the CBC was given to false reporting I will refrain from using that passport point pending some more investigating. Cheers B.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I'm not an anti vaxxer. I was likely jabbed before most of you were. I'm anti lockdown, anti mandate, anti vaxx passport.*[1]* All of which suppress natural immunity forcing people to depend on rushed drugs, not properly tested*[2]* and $35 billion dollar quarters for the people that brought us the opiod crisis for profit. They killed millions through OD's. They ruined lives, employment, relationships and families for profit. They got caught, convicted and fined for their greedy malfeasance and more cases are still being litigated. Drug companies aren't in the game for humanity, they are there to increase their shareholder's bank accounts, period, bottom line.*[3]* If somebody doesn't believe there are politicians and medical people out there in high positions, that haven't been given $consideration$ by the drug companies for their co-operation in driving the vaxx narrative, I've got a bridge located on some swamp land I'd like to speak to you about. Go look up thalidomide and then tell me if you don't have concerns about a rushed, untested, experimental drug being pumped into 90% of the population when one of the first things the drug companies sought, and received, was immunity from prosecution when shit goes sideways. The same companies that want their development, test and user trial data sequestered*[4]* for the next 50 years. Keep sending that tinfoil boys.



*[1] *- So, you're not anti-vaxx but keep posting questionable info about the efficacy of the vaccines and other unproven COVID treatments. Okay.

*[2]* - The development of the COVID vaccines have been covered here _*numerous*_ times.  I'm not even going to bother with that one.

*[3]* - So, you're anti-pharma then.  Hope you don't rely on any medications in your day-to-day-life.

*[4]* - It's not the companies that want all that info sequestered, it's the FDA who said that's how much time they needed to release the documents, at the rate of releasing 500 pages per month of about 329,000 pages. FDA wants 55 years to process FOIA request over vaccine data


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> No.  Both are permits.  One to operate a transportation device, another to comduct an activity like using a public transportation means or attend a public location that has restrictions on space and ability to wear appropriate face coverings (like when eating/drinking).
> 
> *Waiting for you or others to point out where a vaccine passport is required to shop in a grocery store…*


I did, above your post. I posted an article from the CBC. It has since been pointed out that the CBC provided false information. I also stated I would drop that point from discussion pending clarification.

Your first para is still irrelevant. You are going down a rabbit hole of government control and permits. You'll eventually land on the "but I have a library card dammit!"


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I did, above your post. I got it from the CBC. It has since been pointed out that the CBC provided false information.



You posted a news article from 03 Dec, the info was correct at the time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Dec 2021)

mariomike said:


> If an anti-vaxxer ever starved, or was denied emergency medical service, I believe the lawsuit would be huge.
> 
> On the other hand, it may hit them in the wallet with increased rates for health insurance.
> 
> ...


Ah, the two tiered society. Nice.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Ah, the two tiered society. Nice.



I didn't make world. I just live it.

Health insurance for unvaccinated.
unvaccinated "health insurance" - Google Search

Death benefits for unvaccinated.
unvaccinated "death benefits" - Google Search


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Do you need to show your driver's licence to by groceries? This is nothing but a strawman excuse.





Fishbone Jones said:


> Your first para is still irrelevant. You are going down a rabbit hole of government control and permits. You'll eventually land on the "but I have a library card dammit!"


Nope.  First para directly related to your previous post…unless, of course, you’re saying your previous post to which I was responding was…irrelevant. 

If you wish, I accept that your previous post was irrelevant.


----------



## brihard (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Ah, the two tiered society. Nice.


That’s been par for the course in the US for a long time anyway. Americans have long faced barriers in access to quality health insurance if their have certain preconditions. Why would deliberate choices not be in play for same?

Now, I’m not defending the American approach to healthcare. I consider it abhorrent. But there‘a nothing new to their society being ‘two tier’ as it pertains to health care. Even with good health insurance you can be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in the event of a significant illness or injury.

In societies where basic healthcare is not provided as a public good, it only makes sense that profit motivated companies would exclude coverage for deliberate health decisions that have a statistical impact on your likelihood of causing them to incur costs.

Fortunately our system doesn’t peg your access to healthcare to the quality of your employer provided benefits.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Dec 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> . . .  whomever wrote the article is incorrect regarding that one detail (or at least that one detail since it was the only one I checked).



Mea culpa, mea culpa . . .

My apologizes to whomever wrote the Dec 3 CBC article for stating they were incorrect.  By prematurely congratulating myself for finding an inconsistency in what the story said and what the provincial government site said, I failed to complete the research.  If I had looked just a little harder I would have found, also on the NB gov't site, this dated 17 Dec.





__





						Interim measures take effect tonight to slow the spread of Omicron variant
					

Interim measures go into effect across the province at 11:59 p.m. to slow the spread of Omicron and other variants of the COVID-19 virus.




					www2.gnb.ca
				





> Option for stores selling groceries to ask for proof of vaccination removed
> 
> An option allowing stores that sell groceries to ask patrons 12 and over for proof of vaccination, instead of implementing distancing requirements, is being removed from the province’s mandatory order.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Ah, the two tiered society. Nice.


Oh please.......Austin Matthews hurts his knee tonight he has an MRI in hours.....I get mine in 8 months.   Let me guess, this is news to you?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Dec 2021)

brihard said:


> Fortunately our system doesn’t peg your access to healthcare to the quality of your employer provided benefits.



Unless you need medication or have teeth...


----------



## lenaitch (19 Dec 2021)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Here's  the problem, there's  no discussion, no questions. Just a varied levels of government adherence and dogma on  one hand and everything from those that take the jab but only did it to stay employed, stay housed, fed and warm. All the way down to those that would invoke Waco. How the hell did we get to spineless politicians who don't, want to make a decision. Instead they give the running of the country's economy, industry, the social safety net over to a bunch of unelected medical czars?



No discussion or questions?  You truly can't be serious.  Politicians have made decisions, lots of them, you just apparently don't like the decisions they made.  Legislators, not doctors or other SMEs get to enact regulations and orders within legislation. 


Fishbone Jones said:


> Do you need to show your driver's licence to by groceries? This is nothing but a strawman excuse.


Although there has been much discussion in the intervening pages, I was merely making the point that it is not without precedent that governments put rules and conditions on public interaction in the interests of health, safety, integrity, etc.  This temporary, like a highway closed for bad weather; if you believe otherwise, sorry, I can't help you.


----------



## kev994 (19 Dec 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Mea culpa, mea culpa . . .
> 
> My apologizes to whomever wrote the Dec 3 CBC article for stating they were incorrect.  By prematurely congratulating myself for finding an inconsistency in what the story said and what the provincial government site said, I failed to complete the research.  If I had looked just a little harder I would have found, also on the NB gov't site, this dated 17 Dec.
> 
> ...


NB basically changes their rules drastically every day. My parents live there and they can’t keep up with what the rules of the day are. So I’ll forgive you.


----------



## brihard (19 Dec 2021)

kev994 said:


> NB basically changes their rules drastically every day. My parents live there and they can’t keep up with what the rules of the day are. So I’ll forgive you.


NB and NS have been quick through the pandemic to institute new restrictions as situations have changed. Both provinces have begun to get hit with very fast increases in the past few days. I won’t be surprised if we see them act fast again.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2021)

lenaitch said:


> No discussion or questions?  You truly can't be serious.  Politicians have made decisions, lots of them, you just apparently don't like the decisions they made.  Legislators, not doctors or other SMEs get to enact regulations and orders within legislation.
> 
> Although there has been much discussion in the intervening pages, I was merely making the point that it is not without precedent that governments put rules and conditions on public interaction in the interests of health, safety, integrity, etc.  *This temporary, like a highway closed for bad weather; if you believe otherwise, sorry, I can't help you.*


Hold that thought. 😉


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Mea culpa, mea culpa . . .
> 
> My apologizes to whomever wrote the Dec 3 CBC article for stating they were incorrect.  By prematurely congratulating myself for finding an inconsistency in what the story said and what the provincial government site said, I failed to complete the research.  If I had looked just a little harder I would have found, also on the NB gov't site, this dated 17 Dec.
> 
> ...


Tanks! You are a small portion of the 1% of the population that actually look three steps beyond the first article you find that fits your narrative. I wrongly assumed the CBC was beyond reproach. Something must've shorted in my brain. 😁

So bottom line, everyone was right...depending on the date..
No shame, no foul.

I still contend that anyone that thought this was a good idea was an idiot and should be considered a threat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2021)

kev994 said:


> NB basically changes their rules drastically every day. My parents live there and they can’t keep up with what the rules of the day are. So I’ll forgive you.


Sorry, missed this while I was replying to Blackadder.
Please include yourself above. Personal insight from primary contact, is much better than the media. Too simplistic  an analysis, but hey, I'm not changing anybody"s mind one way or the other.

In reality, I'm super bored and need to keep my brain active. This place is like a trickle charger. Just enough stimulus to keep the battery charged. 😉


----------



## QV (20 Dec 2021)

ballz said:


> You're a CAF member right? Then the answer is "whatever ones you are told," including lead bullets fed to you by a machine gun. It's called unlimited liability, if you didn't get the brief if basic training, consider yourself lucky that you've been collecting a pay cheque for all these years without having to reconcile why.


No, I'm thankfully retired. I completed a few decades of unlimited liability. I am now allowed to question everything and you should be thankful that some of us do so for those who can't.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Dec 2021)

While a decision has not yet been posted on the Federal Court of Canada site, I did notice that this entry was made in the "Recorded Entry Summary Information" for the case that was (initially) the topic of this thread. 



> Reasons Order and Reasons dated 17-DEC-2021 rendered by The Honourable Madam Justice Fuhrer Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 5 Result: dismissed "THIS COURT ORDERS that 1. The Applicants' motions are dismissed. 2. No costs are awarded." Filed on 17-DEC-2021 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. Interlocutory Decision Copy of Reasons for Order and Reasons entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1520 page(s) 282 - 314



There is no direct link to the summary pages, you have to search for the cases and then click for "more" information.  The two cases that were heard jointly were court numbers T-1813-21 and  T-1870-21.

A screen grab of part of the info sheet


----------



## dimsum (20 Dec 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> While a decision has not yet been posted on the Federal Court of Canada site, I did notice that this entry was made in the "Recorded Entry Summary Information" for the case that was (initially) the topic of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So...unsuccessful then?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Dec 2021)

dimsum said:


> So...unsuccessful then?



Maybe . . . maybe not.

Without seeing copies of the documents and relying only on the truncated notations from the summary pages, Furher's (_great name for someone whose word is law_) decision may only apply to the specific motions mentioned;

specifically, for case T-1813-21


> Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for an Order for an *injunction order preventing the vaccine mandate* filed on 07-DEC-2021


and
for case T-1870-21


> Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in writing to be placed before the Court in Ottawa for* temporary prohibitive injunction preventing any member of the Canadian Armed Forces acting in its capacity on behalf of the Respondent from enforcing any directive regarding a vaccine mandate from the Chief of Defense staff*, General W. Eyre (_CDS_) pending the outcome of the Applicants' potential judicial review. (see e-copy...) filed on 13-DEC-2021



The justice's decision may not have extended to a "Judicial Review" of the mandate itself, though I get the sense that the " No costs are awarded" would indicate finality.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Dec 2021)

If I read things correctly, Motion 4 (case T-1870-21) was:



> Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Applicant in writing to be placed before the Court in Ottawa for temporary prohibitive injunction preventing any member of the Canadian Armed Forces acting in its capacity on behalf of the Respondent from enforcing any directive regarding a vaccine mandate from the Chief of Defense staff, General W. Eyre (_CDS_) pending the outcome of the Applicants' potential judicial review. (see e-copy...) filed on 13-DEC-2021



This looks like the decision didn't go their way:



> Reasons Order and Reasons dated 17-DEC-2021 rendered by The Honourable Madam Justice Fuhrer Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion Doc. No. 4 Result: dismissed "THIS COURT ORDERS that 1.    The Applicants' motions are dismissed. 2.    No costs are awarded."  Filed on 17-DEC-2021 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. Interlocutory Decision Copy of Reasons for Order and Reasons entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1520 page(s) 348 - 380


----------



## ballz (20 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> No, I'm thankfully retired. I completed a few decades of unlimited liability. I am now allowed to question everything and you should be thankful that some of us do so for those who can't.



This thread is about the military members in this situation, not civilians in a free market. Explain how you can reconcile the idea of unlimited liability with some weird exception about this specific vaccine, or any vaccine/medication for that matter. It's nonsensical. Sorry but no on the "thank-you's," those telling soldiers that they should for some reason be exempt from unlimited liability in this specific instance only serve to further harm the CAF.

Funny enough, all the people that are bitching and whining on here are the same ones that are more than happy to advocate that a business owner should be able to employ whomever they want and provide services to whomever they want, and exercise their freedom of association, and that that will provide the remedy to things like discrimination. Now that they're the person people want to avoid, it's suddenly a travesty, a real human rights issue.

It's fine to not want a vaccine, that's your choice. But those trying to do mental gymnastics as to how you're being wronged because people no longer want to do business with you, including employer/employee relationships, is only hurting yourself further.


----------



## Remius (20 Dec 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> If I read things correctly, Motion 4 (case T-1870-21) was:
> 
> 
> 
> This looks like the decision didn't go their way:


I didn’t think it would,


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Dec 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Oh please.......Austin Matthews hurts his knee tonight he has an MRI in hours.....I get mine in 8 months.   Let me guess, this is news to you?


You be surprised at how many people who champion public healthcare because it is "equal" neglect to remember these inconsistencies


----------



## lenaitch (20 Dec 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> You be surprised at how many people who champion public healthcare because it is "equal" neglect to remember these inconsistencies


He's an American citizen.  How the whole work visa thing work between the two countries is something I have no clue about, but given that they work and constantly travel between numerous jurisdictions, I'm not surprised they have access to private clinics.


----------



## QV (20 Dec 2021)

ballz said:


> This thread is about the military members in this situation, not civilians in a free market. Explain how you can reconcile the idea of unlimited liability with some weird exception about this specific vaccine, or any vaccine/medication for that matter. It's nonsensical. Sorry but no on the "thank-you's," those telling soldiers that they should for some reason be exempt from unlimited liability in this specific instance only serve to further harm the CAF.
> 
> Funny enough, all the people that are bitching and whining on here are the same ones that are more than happy to advocate that a business owner should be able to employ whomever they want and provide services to whomever they want, and exercise their freedom of association, and that that will provide the remedy to things like discrimination. Now that they're the person people want to avoid, it's suddenly a travesty, a real human rights issue.
> 
> It's fine to not want a vaccine, that's your choice. But those trying to do mental gymnastics as to how you're being wronged because people no longer want to do business with you, including employer/employee relationships, is only hurting yourself further.


Oh ffs. Get off your high horse.

Unlimited liability better be for reasons that are right and moral. Not management’s whim. Whether it’s right or moral to mandate vaccines for Covid19 is still up for debate and will be until long term safety data shows it outweighs risk in people who are already not at risk for Covid19. As an aside, management hasn‘t had a great track record lately.


----------



## Pelorus (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> i am now allowed to question everything and you should be thankful that some of us do so for those who can't.





QV said:


> Oh ffs. Get off your high horse.



The lack of self awareness between these two statements made in the same thread on the same day is truly incredible.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Dec 2021)

Pelorus said:


> The lack of self awareness between these two statements made in the same thread on the same day is truly incredible.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Unlimited liability better be for reasons that are right and moral.



That's up to the Queen and those given the authorities under the NDA to issue legal orders. It's a volunteer army... if you lose confidence in the leadership's decision-making (as I have), then you can leave (which I have) so you no longer have to suffer from poor leadership / no longer assume the risk of serving under poor leadership.

For a soldier to argue they should be exempt from unlimited liability because you don't like the orders coming down the pipe is fucking shameless. Unlimited liability doesn't exist to ensure people follow the orders _that they happen to like_.



QV said:


> Whether it’s right or moral to mandate vaccines for Covid19 is still up for debate and will be until....



Whether it's right or moral to make any decision that has to balance risk with accomplishing a mission can always be debated and the "truth" will never be known until you can look back at it in hindsight.

Like taking any objective, no one has a crystal ball so that they can use the benefit of hindsight. Commanders have to make the best decision they can with the information they have. This is absolutely no different than having to make a decision to order someone into harm's way to take an objective. In this case the best info we have is that administering vaccines provide negligible risk but provide a huge boost to force protection... it's an easy decision.

If this causes someone to lose confidence in the leadership, they should do the honorable thing and leave.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Dec 2021)

ballz said:


> That's up to the Queen and those given the authorities under the NDA to issue legal orders. It's a volunteer army... if you lose confidence in the leadership's decision-making (as I have), then you can leave (which I have) so you no longer have to suffer from poor leadership / no longer assume the risk of serving under poor leadership.
> 
> For a soldier to argue they should be exempt from unlimited liability because you don't like the orders coming down the pipe is fucking shameless. Unlimited liability doesn't exist to ensure people follow the orders _that they happen to like_.
> 
> ...



Generally I agree.  But we must think about 2 things, (1) unlawful commands; and (2) is telling the good people to leave what got us in this situation to begin with ? 

Right now the system will sacrifice great Cpl for the craptastic LT(N) 9 times out of 10.  Lets keep in mind the problem here is the craptastic LT(N) and they are the ones that should be corrected to released.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2021)

We were following lawful orders when they used us a guinea pigs for mefloquine.


----------



## QV (21 Dec 2021)

ballz said:


> That's up to the Queen and those given the authorities under the NDA to issue legal orders. It's a volunteer army... if you lose confidence in the leadership's decision-making (as I have), then you can leave (which I have) so you no longer have to suffer from poor leadership / no longer assume the risk of serving under poor leadership.
> 
> For a soldier to argue they should be exempt from unlimited liability because you don't like the orders coming down the pipe is fucking shameless. Unlimited liability doesn't exist to ensure people follow the orders _that they happen to like_.
> 
> ...


Do you equate this pandemic to going to war for your country?


----------



## Remius (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Do you equate this pandemic to going to war for your country?


Do you equate unlimited liability to apply only when going to war for your country?


----------



## QV (21 Dec 2021)

Pelorus said:


> The lack of self awareness between these two statements made in the same thread on the same day is truly incredible.


I can’t question my government as a private citizen? Or are you mad I pointed that out to the guy who lost so much confidence in his leadership that he quit, but says to shut up and do what you’re told or quit like him? Resigning in protest may get some attention if you’re high enough. The soldiers related to this thread have initiated court action to challenge this, nothing wrong with that, this isn’t a war, the CAF is exactly where it is today because too many people shut up and do/say nothing.


----------



## QV (21 Dec 2021)

Remius said:


> Do you equate unlimited liability to apply only when going to war for your country?


Question for question, ok…

What are the acceptable losses in peace time for bad decisions?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Question for question, ok…
> 
> What are the acceptable losses in peace time for bad decisions?


I must have missed that.  So how many CAF personnel have died from vaccination so far?


----------



## QV (21 Dec 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I must have missed that.  So how many CAF personnel have died from vaccination so far?


I don’t know. Do we know the long term effects of the vaccine?


----------



## Remius (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Question for question, ok…
> 
> What are the acceptable losses in peace time for bad decisions?


I wouldn’t know.  How many have we lost to the vaccination? 

The reason I ask is that we have to maintain a certain degree of force readiness and security.  This virus is a threat to that.  

Unlimited Liability is not only limited to war time situations right?

But beyond that, while unlimited liability can be invoked, it has more to do with following lawful authority.  Reservists are not subject to unlimited liability (unless on class C I believe) but are subject to the vaccine directive.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> I don’t know. Do we know the long term effects of the vaccine?


I don’t know either, since we’re only 1-1/2 years into it.

My question about CAF vaccination death rates was directly related to your “what are the acceptable losses in peacetime” question.  Hard to answer your question if no one in the CAF has died…yet, as you would likely ask.


----------



## brihard (21 Dec 2021)

Are CAF members required to be vaccinated to deploy to any of our ongoing operations? If so, in any of those deployed ops is that a requirement imposed by the host nation (Latvia, Ukraine, etc)? Would failure to vaccinate against COVID DAG any of our troops red?


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Dec 2021)

brihard said:


> Are CAF members required to be vaccinated to deploy to any of our ongoing operations? If so, in any of those deployed ops is that a requirement imposed by the host nation (Latvia, Ukraine, etc)? Would failure to vaccinate against COVID DAG any of our troops red?



There are basic immunization requirements for every deployment. Some require specific, additional vaccines. AFAIK, failure to meet the vaccination standard required by the host nation (including COVID), would DAG a person red.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Dec 2021)

Every deployment I went on there was always a DAG for immunizations, so every one had the same level. I particularly didn't like the Yellow Fever shot but I took the damn thing.

Two COVID shots - nothing for me, and nasty for others.


----------



## QV (21 Dec 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I don’t know either, since we’re only 1-1/2 years into it.
> 
> My question about CAF vaccination death rates was directly related to your “what are the acceptable losses in peacetime” question.  Hard to answer your question if no one in the CAF has died…yet, as you would likely ask.


Right. There were two approaches that could have been taken. Recommend/encourage vaccine for those at risk groups, or mandate for all with threat of job loss.

Considering the knowns and unknowns, the prudent approach would have been the former which would have resulted in probably 80%+ uptake anyway, which we know is sufficient for herd immunity provided the vaccine works. But the CAF/DND took the latter with almost zero accommodation for medical or other reasons or for those permanently working from home. 

If there is an unfavourable outcome from the vaccine down the road, the CAF/DND has just forced 98% of its staff to get it under threat of job loss. If there are bad outcomes down the road, the CAF/DND have made the situation far worse by mandating it.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Considering the knowns and unknowns, the prudent approach would have been the former which would have resulted in probably 80%+ uptake anyway, which we know is sufficient for herd immunity provided the vaccine works. But the CAF/DND took the latter with almost zero accommodation for medical or other reasons or for those permanently working from home.


I had calculated CAF voluntary uptake at closer to 76.3819274%.  Not sure why our objectively-derived calculations differ so much. 



QV said:


> If there is an unfavourable outcome from the vaccine down the road, the CAF/DND has just forced 98% of its staff to get it under threat of job loss. If there are bad outcomes down the road, the CAF/DND have made the situation far worse by mandating it.


Is 99.7% ‘far’ worse than 80%+?   How far is far when it comes to worse? More than ‘significantly’ worse, but less than ‘almost inconceivably’ worse?


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2021)

Donald Trump got his booster...

Mic drop


----------



## mariomike (21 Dec 2021)

Sarah Palin says she won't be. 









						Sarah Palin says she’ll get Covid vaccine ‘over my dead body’
					

Former vice-presidential candidate also falsely claimed that those who would refuse a vaccine outnumbered those taking them




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## QV (21 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Donald Trump got his booster...
> 
> Mic drop


Its advisable, as he’s in the “at risk” group. Watch for the pro mandate Trump haters to hate on or mock him for doing something they approve. That’s the test for TDS.


----------



## kev994 (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> But the CAF/DND took the latter with almost zero accommodation for medical...


So could it be that according to medical professionals who have studied this kinda stuff for their entire medical lives there are very few legitimate reasons not to get vaccinated?


----------



## dimsum (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Watch for the pro mandate Trump haters to hate on or mock him for doing something they approve.


No - the reason for the mocking is because he originally brushed it off as "just like the flu" and mocked steps to curb the spread, while having had the vaccine because he's POTUS.

Then, realizing that his actions have caused his voters to refuse those steps and therefore get Covid, he changed his tone.  Not surprisingly, got booed by his base.

So, it's not TDS - it's knowing that he's a hypocrite.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Do you equate this pandemic to going to war for your country?



That literally has zero relevance to the argument. You continue to want to argue the merits of the decision rather than the concept of unlimited liability. Like I said, if you can tell me why unlimited liability does not apply, I'm all ears. But as long as you want to argue that the merits of the decision factors into the equation I could not care less, as the requirement for soldier's to adhere to unlimited liability makes the balance of risk/benefits a secondary, trivial discussion.



Halifax Tar said:


> Generally I agree.  But we must think about 2 things, (1) unlawful commands; and (2) is telling the good people to leave what got us in this situation to begin with ?



1) Are you making an argument that this an unlawful command?

2) No one is telling good people to leave. They're telling people who don't understand unlimited liability to leave.... understanding and honouring the concept of unlimited liability is a pretty important piece to being one of the good soldiers and not one of the shitty ones.



Halifax Tar said:


> Right now the system will sacrifice great Cpl for the craptastic LT(N) 9 times out of 10.  Lets keep in mind the problem here is the craptastic LT(N) and they are the ones that should be corrected to released.



Look I'm more than willing to hate on the CAF for keeping shitty people around and causing good people to leave as a result, I just don't see how that is applicable here. There is nothing that indicates that people who don't want the vaccination are primarily good, anecdotally a lot of people might tell you that there's a lot of bad apples getting booted out because of this.... to which I just point out the weak leadership that must have existed if they weren't already booted out, but that's neither here nor there.



Remius said:


> But beyond that, while unlimited liability can be invoked, it has more to do with following lawful authority.  Reservists are not subject to unlimited liability (unless on class C I believe) but are subject to the vaccine directive.



They're subject to unlimited liability anytime they are on duty... unlimited liability is part of the ethos and found as a "fundamental belief and expectation." It is codified in law by "lawful authority," NDA offences for not following lawful authority, etc.

However, this is the best nuance brought forward yet. Theoretically, a reservist who just doesn't parade while this is a requirement would technically not be violating any lawful orders (albeit they'd be on NES).

Which brings us back to "conditions of employment," for which employers are allowed to define as long as they are not discriminatory (on the grounds laid out in the Canadian Act) and anyone who doesn't meet those requirements can be terminated. No different for any employer/employee relationship and, just like everyone else who has employment conditions changed on them so that they no longer meet the requirements, should be eligible for EI benefits (notwithstanding the Minister inappropriately saying they won't be).


The only way that this could have been handled better, in my opinion, is:

1) Charge them under the NDA. The calculus in being too scared to take this to the SCC, I just don't get it. If it is an unconstitutional law, then we need to know anyway, "though the heavens fall."

2) Offering an expedited 4(c) release before going into remedial measures and a 5(f) release probably would have been more ideal.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2021)

QV said:


> Or are you mad I pointed that out to the guy who lost so much confidence in his leadership that he quit, but says to shut up and do what you’re told or quit like him?



My values (high standards, accountability, integrity) don't align with the institution's values, so yes, I left to greener pastures. However, I followed every lawful order that was given to me until the day I left, including the 6-year period (since 2015) that I knew I would be releasing and including during the 8 months where my release memo was in. I didn't love it, but I swore an oath to do so. I owe the world three things, what I say I'll do, when I say I'll do it, for the price I said I'll do it for. I said I'd abide by unlimited liability, for as long as I was still in uniform, for the compensation that was dropped in my bank account twice a month.



QV said:


> Resigning in protest may get some attention if you’re high enough.



Had nothing to do with getting attention. The CAF is what it is, they can keep going the way they are going, I'm just not willing to follow their lead anymore and so I left.



QV said:


> The soldiers related to this thread have initiated court action to challenge this, nothing wrong with that, this isn’t a war, the CAF is exactly where it is today because too many people shut up and do/say nothing.



That's true, except that the merits of their complaint is so clearly unwarranted and shows they aren't willing to embrace the ethos required to be a member of the profession of arms, and I will judge them accordingly.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Dec 2021)

ballz said:


> That literally has zero relevance to the argument. You continue to want to argue the merits of the decision rather than the concept of unlimited liability. Like I said, if you can tell me why unlimited liability does not apply, I'm all ears. But as long as you want to argue that the merits of the decision factors into the equation I could not care less, as the requirement for soldier's to adhere to unlimited liability makes the balance of risk/benefits a secondary, trivial discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mea culpa!  I was discussing Leadership and Orders in a general sense not really in the veil of COVID.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Dec 2021)

When I was an infantry section commander I could order number three rifleman to take a bound to draw enemy fire. That may cause the number three rifleman to die. But you cannot order a soldier to get vaccinated? 

Some folks need to get a friggin grip on reality.


----------



## Remius (22 Dec 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> When I was an infantry section commander I could order number three rifleman to take a bound to draw enemy fire. That may cause the number three rifleman to die. But you cannot order a soldier to get vaccinated?
> 
> Some folks need to get a friggin grip on reality.


You would face a grievance if you did that without a GBA+ analysis before you initiated that order.  

Is no3 rifleperson in an under represented group? If not, did you try to find one?  If so why are they not taking the bound to draw fire?


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> When I was an infantry section commander I could order number three rifleman to take a bound to draw enemy fire. That may cause the number three rifleman to die. But you cannot order a soldier to get vaccinated?
> 
> Some folks need to get a friggin grip on reality.


That's my argument about a system that does not trust COs and company commanders to do summary trials about relatively minor infractions.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Dec 2021)

Though the order and reasons made by Justice Fuhrer has not yet been posted to the Federal Court website, I requested a copy (it's an easy and quick process) and attach it here for any interested in reading it.  (33 pages PDF)

And of note


> V. Conclusion
> [75] For all the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the Applicants’ motions for a temporary or interlocutory injunction to restrain the enforcement of any directive regarding a vaccine mandate, *pending the outcome of their JR Applications.*



It appears that the Judicial Review is still to be decided.


----------



## FJAG (22 Dec 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Though the order and reasons made by Justice Fuhrer has not yet been posted to the Federal Court website, I requested a copy (it's an easy and quick process) and attach it here for any interested in reading it.  (33 pages PDF)


Thanks for that. An interesting read. They pretty well failed to meet each and every condition necessary for an interlocutory injunction.

Paras 43 to 46 are quite telling.

The balance of convenience test is nicely summed up in this part:



> I find that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the CAF Vaccination Policy for the public good and militates against granting the requested injunction. As mentioned above, the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that their interests outweigh the public interest in ensuring the readiness, health and safety of the Forces, the Defence Team, and the vulnerable groups they may be called on to serve, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.



🍻


----------



## babish88 (1 Jan 2022)

> mariomike said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like eradicating Covid-19 may be possible.
> ...


I keep seeing this message be conveyed, that it is possible to eradicate covid, this message coming from the same people who claim to follow/trust the science. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I actually have a base surg(head doc on a base) on tape saying that no medical professional believes that is possible, that we will have to learn to live with it.
But people like this can continue hocking this notion that "if only those racist, misogynist, selfish unvacced would do their part and get the jab, then we could eradicate it and go back to normal!" 
And that doesn't get censored for being mis/disinformation?

I also keep seeing the notion that we should only trust peer reviewed studies, as if that's the gold standard, that those involved in it have no bias what so ever.

The University of East Anglia in the UK did peer reviewed studies showing how climate change was humans fault etc.
Then their emails got hacked back in 2009 and it was discovered that they misrepresented their findings to achieve their political goals.
So much for the gold standard of peer reviewed studies.
Everyone has a political bias, it would be nice if they acted in a way that was neutral but they don't, they want you to think they do.


----------



## kev994 (1 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> I keep seeing this message be conveyed, that it is possible to eradicate covid, this message coming from the same people who claim to follow/trust the science.
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> ...


Fact Check seems to think that this scandal doesn’t mean what you’re implying that it means.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> I actually have a base surg(head doc on a base) on tape


How did that come about?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> How did that come about?


Can you record conversations in Canada?​Canada follows the one-party consent rule according to section 148 of the criminal code. Therefore, in Canada, *recording private conversations is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording*.

So if two participants are involved in a call, one of the participants can record the call without informing the other of the recording. The same applies when more than two participants are involved in a conversation, only consent from one party is required.

When they speak of is *legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording, *that means the person speaking to the doctor is a participant and can record the conversation, without the doctors knowledge.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Jan 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Can you record conversations in Canada?​Canada follows the one-party consent rule according to section 148 of the criminal code. Therefore, in Canada, *recording private conversations is legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording*.
> 
> So if two participants are involved in a call, one of the participants can record the call without informing the other of the recording. The same applies when more than two participants are involved in a conversation, only consent from one party is required.
> 
> When they speak of is *legal provided one of the participants consents to the recording, *that means the person speaking to the doctor is a participant and can record the conversation, without the doctors knowledge.



I'm curious about the context of someone recording the BSurg talking about covid that's all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jan 2022)

There was a time, when I was an Inspector, that I would start the recorder the minute I arrived at a premise and recorded every word said during the inspection. Whether Joe the Welder or the CEO of one of the largest Asian manufacturers of wind turbines in Canada. It's  pretty amazing watching them change their tunes and try backpedal when they find out they were recorded.

Perhaps someone was just cognizant of the law and decided to take advantage  of it?


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2022)

In any conversation, one should assume they are being recorded.


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2022)

Purely for the sake of discussion, S.184 isn’t a ‘right to record’, per se; it carves out a ‘one party consent’ exception to the criminal offense of ‘interception of private communications’. It means that if a party to a private communication consents to in being recorded, they or another person recording on that basis aren’t committing an offense under the Criminal Code.

Video or audio recording can still be a prohibited activity on any private property, subjecting a person to liability for trespass if they do so. 

Also potentially relevant is S.21 of the Defence Controlled Access Area regulations: 


> Except with the prior consent of a designated authority, no person shall bring into or have on any controlled access area any photographic equipment or any recording or transmitting device, whether such device records or transmits images, sounds, data or other information of any type whatsoever.



Now, that crashes into reality pretty hard in the era of smart phones… In any case, I mention these things only so nobody walks away thinking that section of the Criminal Code necessarily gives they a free and clear to record if and when they like. There’s more law that touches on the subject. Individual circumstances may vary.


----------



## babish88 (2 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm curious about the context of someone recording the BSurg talking about covid that's all.


I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.

Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.
> 
> Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
> How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?


Not sure where you get the impression that literally _anyone_ here thinks COVID will be completely eliminated, so you’ve revived a thread to tilt at windmills. I’ve not seen anyone on this forum express those views. If you read through this and other COVID threads, you’ll come to see that.

If you aren’t vaccinated and aren’t willing to be, that’s completey your right. I’m sure you’ll find other gainful employment opportunities elsewhere if you’re one of the CAF members in this position.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.
> 
> Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
> How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?




Because all of us are smarter then to think your MO is some kind of all seeing/ all knowing God?

Talk about "critical thinking".


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.
> 
> Oh but I'm uneducated and anti-science.
> How long ago did the army stop teaching critical thinking?



A few minutes before they taught deflection would be my guess.


----------



## ballz (2 Jan 2022)

With all the MS Teams meetings over the past 2 years I'd guess a lot of stuff is being recorded...


----------



## mariomike (2 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> If you aren’t vaccinated and aren’t willing to be, that’s completey your right. I’m sure you’ll find other gainful employment opportunities elsewhere if you’re one of the CAF members in this position.



That's good. Because the E I situation does not look great for the vaccine hesitant,









						Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for EI benefits, minister says
					

The policy is intended to protect workplaces from outbreaks and encourage vaccine uptake, says Employment Minister Carla Qualtrough




					nationalpost.com


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jan 2022)

Frankly the government is taking the wrong approach here. Instead of emphasis on the co consequences, we really need a public awareness blitz. Get out there, get in malls, talk shows with doctors and experts, answer the questions. The only way we will combat misinformation is with facts and proper counters. We are failing there, and it just feeds the anti Vax, and vaccine hesitate camps more.


----------



## Quirky (2 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Frankly the government is taking the wrong approach here. Instead of emphasis on the co consequences, we really need a public awareness blitz. Get out there, get in malls, talk shows with doctors and experts, answer the questions. The only way we will combat misinformation is with facts and proper counters. We are failing there, and it just feeds the anti Vax, and vaccine hesitate camps more.



You'll never see an increase of vaccination rates meaningfully beyond what we have now. Those who are against vaccination in the CAF will be so regardless of how many PowerPoints and info sessions they receive. If the CAF was at 100% manning then I can support releasing the unvaccinated, now I'm not so sure. Estimates bring us 10-15k undermanned before this vaccine mandate and now it'll be even worse. No one is joining, people are releasing due to a number of factors like burnout, retirements or just simply wanting to move onto better things. Meanwhile it doesn't seem like the CAF has scaled back operations which is killing the people who are left. At this point, I don't see how losing even more people helps anyone.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jan 2022)

I dont see how keeping people who wouldn't be allowed to travel would help either....


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2022)

ballz said:


> With all the MS Teams meetings over the past 2 years I'd guess a lot of stuff is being recorded...


Absolutely. I'm certain it happens all the time for a variety of reasons.



babish88 said:


> I'm laughing at all these replies about the subject of how I have this, but none of the fact that your premise of "we can eradicate covid if only 100% of people get vaccinated" is wrong, as per a MO, not reddit/twitter etc where you's heard the opposite.


Babish88 since you're using the conversation of a MO as a source would you mind sharing it?


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> If the CAF was at 100% manning then I can support releasing the unvaccinated, now I'm not so sure. Estimates bring us 10-15k undermanned before this vaccine mandate and now it'll be even worse. No one is joining, people are releasing due to a number of factors like burnout, retirements or just simply wanting to move onto better things.



The fraction of people refusing the vaccine is rather insignificant.


----------



## Quirky (2 Jan 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I dont see how keeping people who wouldn't be allowed to travel would help either....



We keep people who aren't deployable....



SupersonicMax said:


> The fraction of people refusing the vaccine is rather insignificant.



Some of the fractions I know are in pretty significant positions that won't be replaced easily. I'm sure the CAF totally did the risk analysis on removing these people and the affect they'll have on training and operations.... or they didn't because it's a government mandate and they have no choice.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> We keep people who aren't deployable....
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the fractions I know are in pretty significant positions that won't be replaced easily. I'm sure the CAF totally did the risk analysis on removing these people and the affect they'll have on training and operations.... or they didn't because it's a government mandate and they have no choice.


Nobody is irreplaceable.


----------



## Quirky (2 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Nobody is irreplaceable.



If your goal is to fill positions, regardless of qualifications, experience, leadership and justification, then no, no one is irreplaceable. Waivers for various things have become normal to fill gaps for key qualifications that units lack due to manning. It's only going to get worse.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> If your goal is to fill positions, regardless of qualifications, experience, leadership and justification, then no, no one is irreplaceable. Waivers for various things have become normal to fill gaps for key qualifications that units lack due to manning. It's only going to get worse.


Two things I learned in my career:

1- You can train people to do work above their level;
2- People generally rise to the challenge.

That’s why the system doesn’t fail when we are faced with shortages.  Not saying the system is perfect (we need to compensate people fairly when they work at a level higher than they are supposed to, which we don’t do enough and the level of approval is far too high) but it is not on the brink of collapse yet.  

Keeping unvaccinated folks that can’t travel just put further strain on the system.


----------



## kev994 (2 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> You'll never see an increase of vaccination rates meaningfully beyond what we have now. Those who are against vaccination in the CAF will be so regardless of how many PowerPoints and info sessions they receive. If the CAF was at 100% manning then I can support releasing the unvaccinated, now I'm not so sure. Estimates bring us 10-15k undermanned before this vaccine mandate and now it'll be even worse. No one is joining, people are releasing due to a number of factors like burnout, retirements or just simply wanting to move onto better things. Meanwhile it doesn't seem like the CAF has scaled back operations which is killing the people who are left. At this point, I don't see how losing even more people helps anyone.


There’s an option for COs to request to retain people despite their not being vaccinated, I haven’t heard of anyone going down that route.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> We keep people who aren't deployable....


I said "travel", not deploy....


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Jan 2022)

kev994 said:


> There’s an option for COs to request to retain people despite their not being vaccinated, I haven’t heard of anyone going down that route.


Maybe it's just the overlap between anti-vaxx and general pain in the asses is strong. Fighting city hall is only worth it when the individual isn't a soup sandwhich.


----------



## Remius (2 Jan 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Maybe it's just the overlap between anti-vaxx and general pain in the asses is strong. Fighting city hall is only worth it when the individual isn't a soup sandwhich.


Of the 5 people that refused to vaccinate where I work.  1 received a legit accomodation.  3 are admin nightmares even before all this and 1 just quit. 

You point is well taken.  And you may actually be right.


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> Of the 5 people that refused to vaccinate where I work.  1 received a legit accomodation.  3 are admin nightmares even before all this and 1 just quit.
> 
> You point is well taken.  And you may actually be right.


Out of curiosity, what was the nature of the legit accommodation?


----------



## Remius (2 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Out of curiosity, what was the nature of the legit accommodation?


Religious.  Have no other details though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> Religious.  Have no other details though.


I've read a few articles about US service mbrs arguing religious grounds, something to do with stem cells or fetus's to do with creating the vaccines. No idea if they were supported or not.


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2022)

Very rare for a religious accommodation to be accepted for this, that’s surprising. None of the requests I’m aware of on those grounds have gotten the thumbs up.


----------



## Remius (2 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Very rare for a religious accommodation to be accepted for this, that’s surprising. None of the requests I’m aware of on those grounds have gotten the thumbs up.


Yep.  But it went up the proper channels.  Was looked into and approved.  Again I have no idea what religion or what allows for it.


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2022)

For sure. I’m not questioning it, just surprised and curious.


----------



## kev994 (2 Jan 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Maybe it's just the overlap between anti-vaxx and general pain in the asses is strong. Fighting city hall is only worth it when the individual isn't a soup sandwhich.


Yeah, I wasn’t going to point it out because my source was Reddit, but the general rumble I’ve been hearing is that many were already that 10% that consumes 90% of your time.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I've read a few articles about US service mbrs arguing religious grounds, something to do with stem cells or fetus's to do with creating the vaccines. No idea if they were supported or not.


Given there is a non-negligeable number of vaccines with stem cells (Hep A, varicella for example), for that argument to be considered, I think the individual would have to make the case that their reservations wrt stem cells in vaccines is not new from 12 months ago…


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Given there is a non-negligeable number of vaccines with stem cells (Hep A, varicella for example), for that argument to be considered, I think the individual would have to make the case that their reservations wrt stem cells in vaccines is not new from 12 months ago…


Tylenol and Ibuprofen used fetal cell lines in development too, plus a lot of other over the counter meds. Of all the claims I’ve seen, the ‘fetal cells’ objection is one I put close to the least stock in.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Given there is a non-negligeable number of vaccines with stem cells (Hep A, varicella for example), for that argument to be considered, I think the individual would have to make the case that their reservations wrt stem cells in vaccines is not new from 12 months ago…



Looks like the US Navy is playing a NOPE card.

Federal hearing begins in Navy SEALs challenge to Defense Department’s vaccine mandate 


> The lawsuit states the service members are unable to receive any of the vaccines due to what they believe and understand is a connection between the vaccines and their testing, development, or production using aborted fetal cell lines.



Navy Does Not Approve Any Religious Exemptions as COVID-19 Vaccine Deadline Passes


----------



## brihard (2 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Looks like the US Navy is playing a NOPE card.
> 
> Federal hearing begins in Navy SEALs challenge to Defense Department’s vaccine mandate
> 
> ...


I look forward to learning more about this when three of the involved SEALs somehow get a book published by middle of next week..


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> I look forward to learning more about this when three of the involved SEALs somehow get a book published by middle of next week..


----------



## FJAG (3 Jan 2022)

Meanwhile in Oklahoma:



> Judge rejects Oklahoma's lawsuit over Guard vaccine mandate
> 
> 
> A federal judge in Oklahoma has ruled against the state in its lawsuit challenging the vaccine mandates for members of the Oklahoma National Guard
> ...



🍻


----------



## babish88 (3 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Absolutely. I'm certain it happens all the time for a variety of reasons.
> 
> 
> Babish88 since you're using the conversation of a MO as a source would you mind sharing it?


Oh would that convince you? Or are you just looking to dox me? 
There's no convincing you, "it's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled"

The MO stating that your position is absolutely wrong, actually came up when I asked why did I hear on the radio that morning, the host say "if we can get everyone jabbed then we can eliminate this thing" to which he said no medical professional believes that etc.

I wish I asked him why that's not fake news that gets censored, because it's obviously fooled a great number of people here.



brihard said:


> Not sure where you get the impression that literally _anyone_ here thinks COVID will be completely eliminated, so you’ve revived a thread to tilt at windmills. I’ve not seen anyone on this forum express those views. If you read through this and other COVID threads, you’ll come to see that.
> 
> If you aren’t vaccinated and aren’t willing to be, that’s completey your right. I’m sure you’ll find other gainful employment opportunities elsewhere if you’re one of the CAF members in this position.


See the guy who I'm replying to above, he is so convinced of the lie that he's pretending to want to hear the MO say a simple true fact.


In reading more of the replies here, you people are..evil.
You seem to get a rise out of seeing your fellow soldiers lose their jobs and not qualify for EI, probably not get another job etc. 
I thought Reddit was bad, but I see the keyboard warriors are here too.

When the military screws you over one day, your actions and rhetoric against your fellow brothers in arms will be rememebered.

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> Oh would that convince you?


I was convinced the conversation with you would go a certain ditection; I wasn't wrong. 



> Or are you just looking to dox me?


You sound like you have a lot of secrets. 



> There's no convincing you





> The MO stating that your position is absolutely wrong


You have no idea what my position is, but I'll tell you. I don't think you or your MO were wrong about it going away. 



> actually came up when I asked why did I hear on the radio that morning, the host say "if we can get everyone jabbed then we can eliminate this thing" to which he said no medical professional believes that etc.


So you were chatting with the base surgeon and recording the conversation. 

Do you record all your conversations or just with the base surgeon? 



> I wish I asked him why that's not fake news that gets censored, because it's obviously fooled a great number of people here.


Ask him the next time you're talking with him. 



> See the guy who I'm replying to above, he is so convinced of the lie that he's pretending to want to hear the MO say a simple true fact.



The base surgeon who was speaking on behalf of all medical professionals. 

Guessing no to hearing your proof. 



> I thought Reddit was bad, but I see the keyboard warriors are here too.


Is it already time to break out the bingo card? 
Keyboard warriors, sheep, sheeple, wake up, cuck, do your own research. 



> In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.


If you tape the words if your enemies it would be easier to remember.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> Oh would that convince you? Or are you just looking to dox me?
> There's no convincing you, "it's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled"
> 
> The MO stating that your position is absolutely wrong, actually came up when I asked why did I hear on the radio that morning, the host say "if we can get everyone jabbed then we can eliminate this thing" to which he said no medical professional believes that etc.
> ...


The COVID vaccine may not eradicate COVID-19 (nobody said this), but it will go a long way into making it endemic. Empirical data also points to the vaccine making symptoms of COVID-19 much subdued when compared to non-vaccinated people.

The CAF (and you) need to do your part in getting COVID to a level that allows us to resume normal lives. It also makes sense the CAF is trying to reduce the effects on COVID-19 on infected people (you know, to maintain a readiness posture). 

Did you also throw a fit when you were “forced” to take all the vaccines during basic’s needle parade?


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Frankly the government is taking the wrong approach here. Instead of emphasis on the co consequences, we really need a public awareness blitz. Get out there, get in malls, talk shows with doctors and experts, answer the questions. The only way we will combat misinformation is with facts and proper counters. We are failing there, and it just feeds the anti Vax, and vaccine hesitate camps more.


The govt has been doing that since Mar 2020.  I'm not sure how much more aware people can be.  

Thing is that people forget that science, especially with a dynamic thing such as Covid, isn't a direct line from discovery to perfect answers.  There will be hypotheses that turn out to be wrong, and answers that we thought were right due to the info at the time but turned out to be wrong.  The "back and forth" with masks, vaccines, etc is all part of that.  

The problem is that the anti-vax and hesitant folks see those failed "answers" as proof that the govt is lying or that there is some "plandemic", rather than the medical folks learning more about the virus and amending recommendations based on it.


----------



## Remius (3 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> When the military screws you over one day, your actions and rhetoric against your fellow brothers in arms will be rememebered.


Those that can’t and more importantly won’t follow lawful authority are not “fellow brothers in arms”.  They are liabilities.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> The MO stating that your position is absolutely wrong, actually came up when I asked why did I hear on the radio that morning, the host say "if we can get everyone jabbed then we can eliminate this thing" to which he said no medical professional believes that etc.


My MO said your MO is wrong.


----------



## Quirky (3 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Not saying the system is perfect (we need to compensate people fairly when they work at a level higher than they are supposed to, which we don’t do enough and the level of approval is far too high) but it is not on the brink of collapse yet.
> 
> Keeping unvaccinated folks that can’t travel just put further strain on the system.



With this mandate we are also denying 20% of the population from joining in the first place. I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel with our manning levels going forward. Removing this mandate isn't going to solve anything, but it's only adding fuel to the fire. The CAF and country does an excellent job of finding different ways to lose people in the ranks, not so much to recruit and retain them.



babish88 said:


> You seem to get a rise out of seeing your fellow soldiers lose their jobs and not qualify for EI, probably not get another job etc.



The one person I know that's not vaccinated and getting released knew all the consequences and made a personal decision. They are more afraid of the vaccine than losing their paycheque. Not qualifying for EI or getting another job is a personal choice they made. I don't think anyone supports the vaccine mandate, nor have I ever heard anyone celebrating it. It's stupid however the decisions were made at the government level, lamenting about it forever doesn't change anything.


----------



## Remius (3 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> With this mandate we are also denying 20% of the population from joining in the first place. I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel with our manning levels going forward. Removing this mandate isn't going to solve anything, but it's only adding fuel to the fire. The CAF and country does an excellent job of finding different ways to lose people in the ranks, not so much to recruit and retain them.


Is it 20% of the total population or 20% of the eligible population that joint to begin with. 

Not everyone is a citizen.  Not everyone meets the educational requirements and not everyone meets the terms for universality of service.   

So you have to get into the weeds of those numbers.  You can’t just say we are excluding 20% of the population with this mandate because that statement is not true.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> With this mandate we are also denying 20% of the population from joining in the first place.


20% of the population who we would spend time and scant resources on who wouldn't be deployable right out of the starting gate.


----------



## ballz (3 Jan 2022)

There's a really good movie on Netflix now called "Don't Look Up" that really puts our current world and all these arguments into great perspective. Basically they discover that a comet is going to hit the earth in about 6 months and everyone wastes the whole 6 months arguing whether it's real or not.


----------



## Remius (3 Jan 2022)

ballz said:


> There's a really good movie on Netflix now called "Don't Look Up" that really puts our current world and all these arguments into great perspective. Basically they discover that a comet is going to hit the earth in about 6 months and everyone wastes the whole 6 months arguing whether it's real or not.


Watched it last night.  “Don’t look up slogan” lol. The comet is in the sky and one side says to exercise your freedom and don’t look up.  Priceless.  

And blaming the astronomer who found the comet because her name is on the comet.


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> With this mandate we are also denying 20% of the population from joining in the first place. I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel with our manning levels going forward. Removing this mandate isn't going to solve anything, but it's only adding fuel to the fire. The CAF and country does an excellent job of finding different ways to lose people in the ranks, not so much to recruit and retain them.


Are we though?  People with a medical exemption won't meet the CAF medical standards anyway, and anyone else would be effectively un-deployable (as most countries require you to be vaccinated to travel).

Similarly some of the admin burdens in the CAF are already a net loss so they aren't really the ones we need to retain (that small % that you spend all your time on ensuring they don't something on fire or hurt themselves).

We do need to do a lot better at recruiting and retention, but needs to be the right people. Someone who can't leave the country is going to be a problem for employment, so maybe you can work around it for someone already trained, but otherwise it's a huge investment for nothing.

Not sure about anyone else, but know a few dozen people that got COVID over the holidays, but because they are vaccinated, so far no significant issues. 90% of the hospitalizations/deaths are among the unvacced/not fully vacced, despite being the minority of the population, so impossible to credibly argue that the vaccine isn't effective. But you know, muh freedums!


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2022)

ballz said:


> There's a really good movie on Netflix now called "Don't Look Up" that really puts our current world and all these arguments into great perspective. Basically they discover that a comet is going to hit the earth in about 6 months and everyone wastes the whole 6 months arguing whether it's real or not.


And also whether they should destroy it or plunder it for resources.


----------



## Remius (3 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> And also whether they should destroy it or plunder it for resources.


Or how everyone is preoccupied with the president’s and Ariana Grande’s personal relationships in the news cycle


----------



## kev994 (3 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> Is it 20% of the total population or 20% of the eligible population that joint to begin with.


Good point. I don’t see us recruiting many children under 5. 

Percent of TOTAL Population including itty bitty babies


----------



## kev994 (3 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> The govt has been doing that since Mar 2020.  I'm not sure how much more aware people can be.
> 
> Thing is that people forget that science, especially with a dynamic thing such as Covid, isn't a direct line from discovery to perfect answers.  There will be hypotheses that turn out to be wrong, and answers that we thought were right due to the info at the time but turned out to be wrong.  The "back and forth" with masks, vaccines, etc is all part of that.
> 
> The problem is that the anti-vax and hesitant folks see those failed "answers" as proof that the govt is lying or that there is some "plandemic", rather than the medical folks learning more about the virus and amending recommendations based on it.


I don’t even get where some of these professional conspirators think this is going. “It’s all about controlling you by making you wear a mask.” To what end? And by every government and most healthcare professionals in the world? As a government employee I can honestly say that I have zero faith that any government could organize this. 
Best that I can come up with is that it’s all about conspiracy click bait.


----------



## Quirky (3 Jan 2022)

ballz said:


> There's a really good movie on Netflix now called "Don't Look Up" that really puts our current world and all these arguments into great perspective. Basically they discover that a comet is going to hit the earth in about 6 months and everyone wastes the whole 6 months arguing whether it's real or not.



Hollywood is obsessed with trump and the republican party, however the movie is fairly accurate.



Navy_Pete said:


> We do need to do a lot better at recruiting and retention, but needs to be the right people. Someone who can't leave the country is going to be a problem for employment, so maybe you can work around it for someone already trained, but otherwise it's a huge investment for nothing.
> 
> Not sure about anyone else, but know a few dozen people that got COVID over the holidays, but because they are vaccinated, so far no significant issues. 90% of the hospitalizations/deaths are among the unvacced/not fully vacced, despite being the minority of the population, so impossible to credibly argue that the vaccine isn't effective. But you know, muh freedums!



We aren't helping ourselves. Undesirable employer, public scandals, terrible recruiting system from advertising to wait time getting to basic, horrible posting locations be it unaffordability or remoteness etc etc. Good luck with your manning problem CF.

Ironically enough, we are releasing, arguably, the healthiest members of society who are the most likely to fight this thing naturally. Vaccines aren't the end-all be-all, obesity and personal health is still a real problem in society and just as an epidemic. The vast majority of people needing medical care for covid have health issues and are over 60. The demographic the CF typically doesn't retain on a normal basis. 



kev994 said:


> Good point. I don’t see us recruiting many children under 5.
> 
> Percent of TOTAL Population including itty bitty babies



We aren't recruiting much of anyone these days.


----------



## ballz (3 Jan 2022)

kev994 said:


> I don’t even get where some of these professional conspirators think this is going. “It’s all about controlling you by making you wear a mask.” To what end? And by every government and most healthcare professionals in the world? *As a government employee I can honestly say that I have zero faith that any government could organize this.*
> Best that I can come up with is that it’s all about conspiracy click bait.



Of course they couldn't. However, it is the natural tendency of all governments to centralize more and more power at the top and eventually become a dictatorship. More of a natural phenoma / freak accident due to continuous human incompetence than a conspiracy. So I do have a place in my heart for the skeptics.



Quirky said:


> We aren't helping ourselves. Undesirable employer, public scandals, terrible recruiting system from advertising to wait time getting to basic, horrible posting locations be it unaffordability or remoteness,* retaining/promoting absolute asshats that make everyone around them suffer by virtue of their existence,* etc etc. Good luck with your manning problem CF.
> 
> Ironically enough, we are releasing, arguably, the healthiest members of society who are the most likely to fight this thing naturally. Vaccines aren't the end-all be-all, obesity and personal health is still a real problem in society and just as an epidemic. The vast majority of people needing medical care for covid have health issues and are over 60. The demographic the CF typically doesn't retain on a normal basis.



Let's not forget a really serious retention killer... COVID-19 my be the crutch the CAF needed to grow a spine and put a lot of the garbage out at the curb, and could help future retention issues.


----------



## Quirky (3 Jan 2022)

ballz said:


> Let's not forget a really serious retention killer... COVID-19 my be the crutch the CAF needed to grow a spine and put a lot of the garbage out at the curb, and could help future retention issues.



Can we afford to put the garbage to the curb? Even the mcdonalds of the world need staff to flip burgers and mop floors, not everyone will become management. We are already promoting complete asshats who have spent a decade in rank, but due to empty spots they get the bump. With the state of recruiting, the Mcpl rank will become the new private.


----------



## ballz (3 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Can we afford to put the garbage to the curb?



If we don't, we will continue to lose _good people_ at the cost of retaining _bad people_. You seem to be missing the point I'm making in that I think kicking shitbirds out will pay itself back in multiples. We've been trying the "don't get rid of anybody, we're too short-staffed" strategy for a long time and it's not working... all it does is cause good people to leave instead.



Quirky said:


> Even the mcdonalds of the world need staff to flip burgers and mop floors, *not everyone will become management*.



Uhhh, not in McDonald's no... but in our organization the CAF, yes.



Quirky said:


> We are already promoting complete asshats who have spent a decade in rank, but *due to empty spots* they get the bump.



You mean, due to the fact that we didn't get rid of them even though we knew they were a complete asshat, they eventually got the bump... which is what you are advocating we continue.

I have no problems promoting competent people faster and at a younger age, at the expense of them not having as much experience and at the expense of those whose only noteworthy quality is "he's got the most time-in-rank."


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Can we afford to put the garbage to the curb?


Not putting the garbage to the curb contributed to a $1 billion settlement for victims (many who probably didn't stick around) and our leadership splashed across the national news ever other week.


----------



## Quirky (3 Jan 2022)

ballz said:


> We've been trying the "don't get rid of anybody, we're too short-staffed" strategy for a long time and it's not working... all it does is cause good people to leave instead.



I agree that there are people who can't do their jobs and would otherwise be fired from their trade in the real-world. Releasing people because of their inability to do their job, compared to their average peers, is nearly impossible. Asshats in uniform keep offering these people contracts regardless of paperwork substantiating their inability to advance in their professional careers or meet the minimal requirements. Every unit probably has 1-2 people out of 100 that could be shown the door, but most CoCs just give up because all the paperwork justifying it doesn't go anywhere. I don't see how covid will make it easier to get rid of people for being incompetent or useless in their trade. This is an institutional problem where firing people for non disciplinary reasons is next to impossible.


----------



## Remius (3 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> I agree that there are people who can't do their jobs and would otherwise be fired from their trade in the real-world. Releasing people because of their inability to do their job, compared to their average peers, is nearly impossible. Asshats in uniform keep offering these people contracts regardless of paperwork substantiating their inability to advance in their professional careers or meet the minimal requirements. Every unit probably has 1-2 people out of 100 that could be shown the door, but most CoCs just give up because all the paperwork justifying it doesn't go anywhere. I don't see how covid will make it easier to get rid of people for being incompetent or useless in their trade. This is an institutional problem where firing people for non disciplinary reasons is next to impossible.


ironically we have 2 or three people being shown the door because of COVID that will be shown the door sooner as a result.


----------



## Quirky (3 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> ironically we have 2 or three people being shown the door because of COVID that will be shown the door sooner as a result.



Too bad we can't remove people this quickly for trade related reasons.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Too bad we can't remove people this quickly for trade related reasons.


The thing with admin measures is that you need to give people sufficient time to correct deficiencies.  In the case of trades, this is measured in years in most cases.  For COVID, the path was just shorter.  Getting a vaccine doesn’t take years.


----------



## Quirky (3 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> The thing with admin measures is that you need to give people sufficient time to correct deficiencies.  In the case of trades, this is measured in years in most cases.  For COVID, the path was just shorter.  Getting a vaccine doesn’t take years.



Years is unacceptable and giving someone that much time to figure out how to do their job is an indication of unfit for trade employment. Meanwhile the time spent mentoring this individual by qualified pers and money spent on salary and benefits could be used elsewhere. There needs to be limits on how long someone can get a grasp on their trade. Just because you join as a mechanic or pilot doesn’t mean you’ll be good enough to meet requirements. Taking years to become proficient in basic tasks is unacceptable.

The people that I know who are being kicked out for vaccine refusal do not fit that category of administrative burden and are great at their jobs. Meanwhile the guy who still needs supervision with a screwdriver 4 years post QL5 still keeps their job.


----------



## Booter (3 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> The MO stating that your position is absolutely wrong, actually came up when I asked why did I hear on the radio that morning, the host say "if we can get everyone jabbed then we can eliminate this thing" to which he said no medical professional believes that etc.



EXTRA! EXTRA! Doctor says guy on radio exaggerated or misunderstood what he was talking about! You heard it here first.

Then soldier asks doctor about how internet censorship works because he’s a medical officer and would have insight into that.


----------



## brihard (3 Jan 2022)

babish88 said:


> See the guy who I'm replying to above, he is so convinced of the lie that he's pretending to want to hear the MO say a simple true fact.
> 
> 
> In reading more of the replies here, you people are..evil.
> ...


So, no. You're making things up. You're fabricating, and are spouting nonsense that does not have a basis in fact. Nowhere has Jarnhamar claimed that the COVID vaccine will eliminate COVID completely. Nobody else on this site has either, ever that I've seen in the nearly two years of this pandemic. I won't even bother challenging you to show me where they did, because you can't. It's your own falsehood. What most of us believe, what public health experts have said, and what you appear incapable of grasping the nuance of, is that with enough people vaccinated, the _public health and policy crisis_ over overloaded hospitals and ICUs can be eliminated- that is to say, COVID will still be here, but won't make enough people sufficiently ill that we need to limit society to protect hospitals.

What happened here is you winged in out of nowhere talking about having an audiorecording of a CAF Base Surgeon talking about COVID, and in a way that clearly you failed to properly grasp. Showing up out of nowhere to talk about recording a base surgeon will raise eyebrows from nearly anyone, and a few questions were asked. You took one such question as a challenge, and seem to think that because he asked about what circumstances led to you audio recording a medical officer, that he must somehow believe your imagined fantasy of 'believe a vaccine will eliminate COVID'. Then you went off on some rant.

Your posting history suggests you've been in a while. I have no idea if you're any good as a troop; I won't speculate. But what DOES seem to be the case, assuming I've correctly understood that you choose not to be vaccinated, is that you have deliberately made an informed choice that is not consistent with future CAF employment. You cannot get on a commercial aircraft to fly elsewhere for a tasking or course. You cannot enter most foreign countries. It's not a matter of you sucking at your job and needing retraining, but rather just choosing not to _do_ your job- because being employable and deployable is part of your job, same as everyone else.

You are not a conscript. If you choose to place your own wants above the needs of CAF and Canada, that's fine, you're completely within your rights to do that- you just aren't entitled to a job. Your conditions of employment have changed in response to the biggest crises in decades, and you have decided you're no longer up to it. OK, cool. You're entitled to take your pension transfer value and find new pursuits elsewhere.  If you've managed to actually find Reddit and army.ca in agreement on something though, and you find yourself surrounded by 'evil' assholes- maybe consider the common denominator.

On a personal note, I trusted Jarhamar with my life in Afghanistan, on one of his numerous tours, and I'm not the only one here who has. Several of us know what else he's done in his service. Don't think for a second that anyone with any credibility is questioning his dedication to his brothers and sisters in arms. He's got nothing to prove in that respect.

Have a great night.


----------



## Bluebulldog (4 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> You are not a conscript. If you choose to place your own wants above the needs of CAF and Canada, that's fine, you're completely within your rights to do that- you just aren't entitled to a job. Your conditions of employment have changed in response to the biggest crises in decades, and you have decided you're no longer up to it. OK, cool. You're entitled to take your pension transfer value and find new pursuits elsewhere.



Could that just be a formalized letter, and sent out to the remaining hold outs, both in the CAF and across the Federal Service?

Well said.


----------



## Spencer100 (4 Jan 2022)

Down south.  The agenda is starting to fall apart.  The SC is starting the case.  So it will be interesting. 









						Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Navy Vaccine Mandate for 35 Challengers | National Review
					

‘The Navy servicemembers in this case seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect,’ the judge wrote.




					www.nationalreview.com


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> Could that just be a formalized letter, and sent out to the remaining hold outs, both in the CAF and across the Federal Service?
> 
> Well said.


For what its worth I concur with your opinion.

We entrust the lives of 30 soldiers to officers sometimes as young as 22 years old whose orders may put their lives at risk, yet the CDS cannot order you to get vaccinated.

To those of you who are fighting this, please release.


----------



## dimsum (4 Jan 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> We entrust the lives of 30 soldiers to officers sometimes as young as 22 years old whose orders may put their lives at risk


Similarly, not that long ago*, Naval Reserve officers could theoretically be qualified to become the Officer of the Watch on an MCDV at about 20 years old.  MCDVs have up to 50 crew onboard.

* If they entered as RESO, so no requirement to finish their studies prior to phase training, and if they go through the courses one right after the other


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Jan 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> For what its worth I concur with your opinion.
> 
> We entrust the lives of 30 soldiers to officers sometimes as young as 22 years old whose orders may put their lives at risk, yet the CDS cannot order you to get vaccinated.
> 
> To those of you who are fighting this, please release.



The irony to me is we had trusted them with that combat/operational responsibility but we don't trust them to judge what's best to inject into their own body.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jan 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> Down south.  The agenda is starting to fall apart.  The SC is starting the case.  So it will be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What agenda exactly?


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The irony to me is we had trusted them with that combat/operational responsibility but don't trust them to judge what's best to inject into their own body.



For one, they are trained to lead in combat/operations. Not so much in virology and public health measures.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> For one, they are trained to lead in combat/operations. Not so much in virology and public health measures.



So now one has to be an expert to decide what gets put into their body ?  

Good god!  I need to start growing marijuana and brewing whiskey lol

In all seriousness I see your point.  I just see the situation as contradictory for multiple angles is all.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2022)

You brew beer.

You distill whiskey.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Jan 2022)

dapaterson said:


> You brew beer.
> 
> You distill whiskey.



I'm on my phone and the .gifs won't work... But I'm facepalming myself... 

Merci lol


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2022)

As your punishment, you must drink a beer, then savour a glass of whiskey.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So now one has to be an expert to decide what gets put into their body ?
> 
> Good god!  I need to start growing marijuana and brewing whiskey lol
> 
> In all seriousness I see your point.  I just see the situation as contradictory for multiple angles is all.


To decide? No. People can be stupid and not follow advice from those with an education and experience that is relevant.  Just like en embeded reporter would free to put themselves in harm’s way. But it would be stupid to do so when against the advise of the commander on the ground.


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So now one has to be an expert to decide what gets put into their body ?



Not at all. Regarding that, anyone gets to make as uninformed a choice as they see fit- it just may have consequences.

You DO have to be an expert to decide what the appropriate medical standards and requirements for military service and deployability are, though. No soldier was ever consulted on whether they should require Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines in order to satisfy medical requirements either.

CAF says you must be vaccinated against COVID (or has an approved accommodation on legal grounds) in order to serve as a member. So you can absolutely choose not to get vaccinated, just that in doing so you’re also choosing not to continue serving CAF. Whether you have a Master’s in Biology, or you simply watch some sketchy YouTube videos while taking a dump, that choice is totally up to you.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Not at all. Regarding that, anyone gets to make as uninformed a choice as they see fit- it just may have consequences.
> 
> You DO have to be an expert to decide what the appropriate medical standards and requirements for military service and deployability are, though. No soldier was ever consulted on whether they should require Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines in order to satisfy medical requirements either.
> 
> CAF says you must be vaccinated against COVID (or has an approved accommodation on legal grounds) in order to serve as a member. So you can absolutely choose not to get vaccinated, just that in doing so you’re also choosing not to continue serving CAF. Whether you have a Master’s in Biology, or you simply watch some sketchy YouTube videos while taking a dump, that choice is totally up to you.



Thanks tips.


----------



## brihard (4 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Thanks tips.


You’re welcome.


----------



## Bluebulldog (5 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Not at all. Regarding that, anyone gets to make as uninformed a choice as they see fit- it just may have consequences.



Ah. There's the rub.

What much of the issue is, both CF and Federal service, is that this is one of the first times, in a very long period, where there is a very direct ( and stated), consequence of action.

For the last few generations there have always been implied penalties, and a ton of process...to a generation that by-and-large had empty threats made by parents, and other persons in authority. This is likely the first time for many, where it has been explicitly spelled out. x+y=Z, and many don't like it. The online tantrums, and seeking confirmation bias to justify action, has been a go-to for far too long.

I've watched a former friend ( member), drag his feet, and is now facing a career ending decision. He has chosen this hill to die on.

I envy his conviction, and admire him for his principle.....if not his intelligence.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> Ah. There's the rub.
> 
> What much of the issue is, both CF and Federal service, is that this is one of the first times, in a very long period, where there is a very direct ( and stated), consequence of action.
> 
> ...



For full context, I am vaxxed and will get what ever the CAF prescribes to me.  Not so much out of altruism or belief in the cause, more out of pragmatism and real world facts of life.  Just being honest here, and I don't think I am alone.

Carrying on, I'm a CPO2, I fully understand and support the issuance of orders, and I get where my role sits in that system.  My conundrum comes with where does that end.  Some would argue at the border of lawful orders and not.  Its probably the right line.

A persons body is the a deeper issue IMHO.  Taking administrative action on people because they do not wish to inject a foreign substance into their body is a point I waiver on.  I just see it as coercive to hold peoples livelihoods and professional lives over their heads for this.  I've done numerous deployments and I am on my second immunization book. I even turned down malarial meds on my AFG deployments. 

It seems all too Orwellian go this route.  Maybe going through this on deployment and in NS means I am lacking some perspective of the actual threat this poses.  We've done well here, and if I lived in Tor, Mtl or Van maybe I would have a different position.

I am currently on a year long French course so I haven't had to experience dealing with a subordinate who choses not to get vaccinated.  As always I would carry out the direction given too me if I was in such a situation.  And I would ensure my subordinate understands the repercussions of their decision, I may even have sympathy for them.

Its a strange divided world we're in now.  Just look at this site, while there have been many arguments on here before they seems to be getting more and more divisive and I can see our membership moving into camps.  I don't like it. 

I don't know, verbal ejection over lol


----------



## Bluebulldog (5 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> For full context, I am vaxxed and will get what ever the CAF prescribes to me. Not so much out of altruism or belief in the cause, more out of pragmatism and real world facts of life.



As are many.



Halifax Tar said:


> A persons body is the a deeper issue IMHO. Taking administrative action on people because they do not wish to inject a foreign substance into their body is a point I waiver on. I just see it as coercive to hold peoples livelihoods and professional lives over their heads for this.



But it has always been thus.

I don't view it as holding their livelihoods, nor professional lives "over their heads".  Perhaps that's where I'm wrong.

There is a very definitive requirement, and the consequence of inaction has been outlined. Children need to be vaccinated in order to attend publicly funded school, under our social contract. Failure to do so....there are options. Private schools, private tutors, homeschool.

You're an MSE Op? Great, there is a ton of work available civvy side.....similar for other trades ( albeit, many opportunities are reduced due to employers wishing to have staff vaxxed as well).

As Brihard, so eloquently put it, an unvaxxed person certainly has the right to seek, and maintain employment, but the requirements of the CAF and the Federal Service are now beyond their reach.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> As are many.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're preaching to the choir.  I'm just in the choir stroking my beard in contemplation is all.


----------



## winds_13 (5 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> Could that just be a formalized letter, and sent out to the remaining hold outs, both in the CAF and across the Federal Service?
> 
> Well said.



Why send said letter to the Federal Public Service as well? 

It is one thing for CAF members to have to meet certain medical requirements and to follow orders, it is quite another to fire public servants that work entirely from home because of their medical decisions.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems statements like this are rooted in disdain/hate for a certain subset of the population... a real great way to make policy. 

People keep saying that there is the choice to go work somewhere else but the federal government is encouraging all employers to also put in place similar workplace mandates.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> You're preaching to the choir.  I'm just in the choir stroking my beard in contemplation is all.


That’s the thing.  I would oppose the gvt forcing people to take a vaccine or anything else in regards to their bodies.

Same with abortion, end of life choices and most things people choose or don’t choose for their own bodies.

But I support how society and organizations can make certain criteria to be a full participant. As long as the person can opt in or out of said choices when it comes to their own bodies.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Why send said letter to the Federal Public Service as well?
> 
> It is one thing for CAF members to have to meet certain medical requirements and to follow orders, it is quite another to fire public servants that work entirely from home because of their medical decisions.
> 
> ...


Encouraging and forcing are two different things.  Btw the private sector started asking for mandatory vaccines well before the gvt did or before the gvt asked them to.


----------



## Bluebulldog (5 Jan 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Why send said letter to the Federal Public Service as well?
> 
> It is one thing for CAF members to have to meet certain medical requirements and to follow orders, it is quite another to fire public servants that work entirely from home because of their medical decisions.



Because the same reasoning applies. 

It is a bold assumption that ALL public servants "work entirely from home". It is also fallacy to expect that their working environment will be to do so indefinitely. The employer has the right to dictate how their work environment should operate, and that they ensure the safety of those within that environment. 


winds_13 said:


> it seems statements like this are rooted in disdain/hate for a certain subset of the population... a real great way to make policy.



Not at all. You've made a couple of assumptions in your statement.



Remius said:


> Encouraging and forcing are two different things. Btw the private sector started asking for mandatory vaccines well before the gvt did or before the gvt asked them to.



In fact, by extension any vendors doing business on Federal Sites ( Including CAF facilities) need to be in compliance with vaccination mandates.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Jan 2022)

Setting aside the CAF did public servants have to prove their immunization record as a condition of employment prior to COVID ? 

Honest question.


----------



## Bluebulldog (5 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Setting aside the CAF did public servants have to prove their immunization record as a condition of employment prior to COVID ?
> 
> Honest question.



Honest answer, I didn't......


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> For full context, I am vaxxed and will get what ever the CAF prescribes to me.  Not so much out of altruism or belief in the cause, more out of pragmatism and real world facts of life.  Just being honest here, and I don't think I am alone.
> 
> Carrying on, I'm a CPO2, I fully understand and support the issuance of orders, and I get where my role sits in that system.  My conundrum comes with where does that end.  Some would argue at the border of lawful orders and not.  Its probably the right line.
> 
> ...


That’s fair, and I think I spoke earlier with more disdain that I intended- I apologize for that. While I have exceedingly little time for the anti vax types at this point, I know that’s also not your personal stance, and that your concerns and objections are more nuanced.

I think there’s been some muddying of the waters here in that for a long time, administrative measures and disciplinary ones have had heavy overlap. You frig up, you eat a charge, and oftentimes there’s administrative action too. Though the admin side is to document and address a performance deficiency, it’s _perceived_ as a consequence for conduct/discipline.

In this case, administrative action is being used to correct a ‘deficiency’ in its clearest, most direct and measurable form. In response to a situation unprecedented in living memory, there is now a thing CAF members need to do to protect themselves and others and to be able to travel- it’s a readiness and force protection thing, really. Unlike someone sucking at a job tasks, this one is a purely binary yes/no, with just as simple a solution, and that solution can be remedied in the time it takes to log in to a provincial website or drive to a walk in vaccine clinic, thus allowing for seriously expedited timelines. 

Because CAF members now see administrative action being used in its purest, most efficient form, it can’t help but contrast with a long, slow, drawn out process usually associated with cases where it’s seen as punitive. This might explain some of why some members perceive themselves as being railroaded- though Bluebulldog I think also has hit a nail on the head with there being a general unfamiliarity with actions or choices equaling consequences.

FWIW, I would not take my stance and apply it more broadly to the entire public service. In such cases this policy is clearly being used coercively to achieve government objectives. If some CR-5 can and has been working from home and there’s no realistic reason to expect they would need to physically attend the workplace or a congregate setting, I don’t see there being the same bona fide requirement. RCMP officers, yes; corrections, CBSA, other essential or ‘public facing’ roles, yes. No issue there.

If private businesses want to put a mandate in place to smooth operations, that’s their prerogative too.

CAF is the most special case, with emergency, healthcare, or other front line services following close behind for similar reasons.


----------



## stoker dave (5 Jan 2022)

Just for reference, I work for a large, multi-national engineering and construction company.  All employees (40,000+) are mandated to be vaccinated.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2022)

Not to join the CAF.

But, before being eligible to apply to the municipal public service we had to be vaccinated for Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Pertussis, proof of immunity to Varicella TDP, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella.

After I hired on, proof of seasonal Influenza vaccination was also required. 



Bluebulldog said:


> Honest answer, I didn't......


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> Not to join the CAF.
> 
> But, before being eligible to apply to the municipal public service we had to be vaccinated for Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Pertussis, proof of immunity to Varicella TDP, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella.
> 
> After I hired on, proof of seasonal Influenza vaccination was also required.


Was that unique to paramedics, or did it apply more broadly within your city?


----------



## mariomike (5 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Was that unique to paramedics, or did it apply more broadly within your city?



It was mandated for our job classification prior to joining. 

Maybe Dept. of Public Health and the Water Dept. had something similar. But, I'm not sure what their mandates were.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Setting aside the CAF did public servants have to prove their immunization record as a condition of employment prior to COVID ?
> 
> Honest question.


PSEs had to attest just like CAF members did.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> PSEs had to attest just like CAF members did.


Oh sorry prior to COVID no.


----------



## Bluebulldog (5 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> It was mandated for our job classification prior to joining.
> 
> Maybe Dept. of Public Health and the Water Dept. had something similar. But, I'm not sure what their mandates were.



Having worked in a Municipal Environment previously ( non medical), it was not a requirement. Our day care staff, LTC employees, and paramedics were required to be, and submit proof.

Federally I've worked with the RCMP, as well as another Crown Corp ( current). Not a requirement, with the exception of front line staff. Although some staff travelling to the far North were required to submit proof, prior to travel.


----------



## Fabius (5 Jan 2022)

In a broad context, what is the dividing line between encouraged and forced? 
If government makes one of two choices almost unviable does that count as a true legitimate  choice?

These are questions that make me uncomfortable with some attitudes expressed by society and certain officials right now.


----------



## Bluebulldog (5 Jan 2022)

Fabius said:


> If government makes one of two choices almost unviable does that count as a true legitimate choice?



IMHO, it comes down to what is the requirement of the position.

Do you walk up to an employer, apply, and then cite a religious exemption when required to work on the sabbath?

If the job requires you interact with other humans, and wishes to minimize risk, so requires you to be immunized?
_Let me clarify, that "risk" is a broad use word, which encompasses all, including the employer, it's staff, its other resources, and other entities it works with_

As mentioned, I know some in the Federal Service were required to provide UTD proof of vaccination prior to travel to the far North. 

If disclosed as part of the hiring process, would that more or less mean it isn't still a choice? 

The choice is still there. Yes, it's a lousy one for some, and may feel like the sword of Damocles, but it exists. 

Please don't misinterpret. I am not unsympathetic to those who are struggling with it. I have lost a good friend simply by way of my being on my side of the fence. 

But inconveniently the old saw still applies " You take the Queens shilling, you do the Queens bidding".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jan 2022)

Nowadays the Queen takes your shilling and tells you their bidding.


----------



## winds_13 (5 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> It is a bold assumption that ALL public servants "work entirely from home". It is also fallacy to expect that their working environment will be to do so indefinitely. The employer has the right to dictate how their work environment should operate, and that they ensure the safety of those within that environment.


I never said that ALL public servants work from home, but the majority currently do. The employer has certain rights but they have already broken several collective agreements... for instance, most public service agreements do not allow for employees to be placed on LWOP except for voluntarily. I do not think it is a fallacy to think that large portions of the Public Service will move to permanent remote work, it is something that had been pursued before the pandemic as a means to allow more flexible working arrangements, for equity reasons.

How exactly does firing (or placing members on LWOP) significantly alter the safety of those around them? How much more likely is a vaccinated employee to catch COVID19 if there is an unvaccinated worker in the office? What if that person submits to mandatory testing and proves that they are negative? What if that worker is not in the office, but working virtually?


----------



## lenaitch (5 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> Ah. There's the rub.
> 
> What much of the issue is, both CF and Federal service, is that this is one of the first times, in a very long period, where there is a very direct ( and stated), consequence of action.
> 
> ...


My son-in law is a department manager who had to walk one of his unvaccinated staff to the door whose last words were 'I didn't they'd really do it'.


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2022)

I don’t think this got lost in the mix earlier- news in the past couple hours (can’t post here due to the reporter), sounds like Federal Court returned a decision on the requested injunction today, and shot it down quite decisively. Absolutely no dice for the members trying to get and injunction. I’m not sure if this represents the conclusion of this proceeding or if there’s still more going forward and the injunction sought was an interim measure. Decision should be posted tomorrow.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> . . . . Decision should be posted tomorrow.



It's up already.





__





						Neri v. Canada - Federal Court
					






					decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
				




It's the same as the pdf posted earlier in the thread CAF Members File Suit in Federal Court re: COVID 19 Vaccine


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> It's up already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah- I had understood this to be a decision newly rendered rather than a release of the decision from December. Thank you. Sometimes cases will have a number of interim orders and decisions along the way.

Edit to add:

Oof. That was a pretty blistering decision. So yeah, rejection of an interim injunction requested as part of a Judicial Review, where the court is asked to review an administrative decision.

The judge basically torpedoed the entire judicial review in this one. The applicants completely failed to exercise the grievance system; you will almost never get a favourable judicial review if you fail to exhaust internal grievance methods or applicable tribunals first. Beyond that, it reads like they essentially failed to make a convincing case whatsoever. I think that Judicial Review will die an ugly death when it gets decided upon. These members are hooped.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Ah- I had understood this to be a decision newly rendered rather than a release of the decision from December. Thank you. Sometimes cases will have a number of interim orders and decisions along the way.


The press is quick to say someone sued DND but very slow to say they lost their suit bigtime. I'm actually surprised it was reported at all. Haven't seen it anywhere else. Maybe now it will circulate.

🍻


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2022)

FJAG said:


> The press is quick to say someone sued DND but very slow to say they lost their suit bigtime. I'm actually surprised it was reported at all. Haven't seen it anywhere else. Maybe now it will circulate.
> 
> 🍻


Pour yourself a drink and read the decision if you haven’t already. You’ll cringe. I wouldn’t want to be counsel for the applicants with my name on this ruling.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Pour yourself a drink and read the decision if you haven’t already. You’ll cringe.* I wouldn’t want to be counsel for the applicants with my name on this ruling.*



I wonder if this is related to this case.






						Catherine Christensen – Law Society of Alberta
					

A self governing body, acting as a regulator, to set the standards for Alberta lawyers. Includes news, and services for lawyers and for the public.




					www.lawsociety.ab.ca


----------



## brihard (5 Jan 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> I wonder if this is related to this case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe you’re right. Looks like she’s a relatively recent lawyer and specializes in assisting CAF members. She may have found herself a bit out of her depth on this.


----------



## FJAG (6 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Pour yourself a drink and read the decision if you haven’t already. You’ll cringe. I wouldn’t want to be counsel for the applicants with my name on this ruling.


I read it when it cam out. I agree with you.

Sometimes after all of your advice the client says: "It's the principle of the thing." At that point I usually used go into a long discussion about what my fees will be and the consequences of having costs awarded against you (which they didn't in this case) and if they still want to go on principle I take a full retainer cause you just know that when you lose - like you predicted you would - they'll come after you.

🍻


----------



## Bluebulldog (6 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Pour yourself a drink and read the decision if you haven’t already. You’ll cringe. I wouldn’t want to be counsel for the applicants with my name on this ruling.



Jebus. That was brutal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2022)

FJAG said:


> The press is quick to say someone sued DND but very slow to say they lost their suit bigtime. I'm actually surprised it was reported at all. Haven't seen it anywhere else. Maybe now it will circulate.
> 
> 🍻


Here in the National Post/Postmedia and The Canadian Press has a version out there as well for member outlets to share.

Last CBC.ca update:  15 Dec 2021 (they're in court, decision reserved)


----------



## Gorgo (6 Jan 2022)

Honestly, if people are SO stupid that they'd refuse a PROVEN vaccine to protect themselves from a deadly pandemic, the sooner they're out of the CF the better.  Never mind the whole "refuse a superior officer's direct order" thing, we don't NEED that level of STUPIDITY in the military!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2022)

Gorgo said:


> Honestly, if people are SO stupid that they'd refuse a PROVEN vaccine to protect themselves from a deadly pandemic, the sooner they're out of the CF the better.  Never mind the whole "refuse a superior officer's direct order" thing, we don't NEED that level of STUPIDITY in the military!


Whoa whoa whoa........I think everyone should be vaxxed, but don't you be "SO stupid" to think that this vaccine is "PROVEN".   We humans aren't that smart, years from now there could very well be side effects.   For now I truly believe it's the right thing to do, but lets not run around talking that smugly and/or insulting.

Only time/history "proves" things.........[and that isn't even always correct]


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jan 2022)

Short version:

I find that what is at stake for the Applicants here is not forcible vaccination but rather the consequences of one’s choice to remain unvaccinated.


----------



## Bluebulldog (6 Jan 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> years from now there could very well be side effects


 Mefloquine anyone.....?


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> Short version:
> 
> I find that what is at stake for the Applicants here is not forcible vaccination but rather the consequences of one’s choice to remain unvaccinated.


Precisely this. And the court is saying there’s no irreparable harm here; any career consequences could ultimately be compensated with financial damages if it came to that.


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2022)

dapaterson said:


> With monthly allowances now, that's why you're getting an extra $327 to $822 per month (depending on how many months you've had in a field unit).  Chapter 205- Allowances for officers and non-commissioned members - Canada.ca


Though no allowance can give you time with family.


----------



## OceanBonfire (7 Jan 2022)

Only after the court made it's move:









						O'Toole says all CAF members should be vaxxed, after court rejects vaccine mandate challenge
					

Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole said he believes all those in uniform should be vaccinated against COVID-19, after the Federal Court rejected a request by some military members for exemption from a vaccine mandate order.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Jan 2022)

Over 900 unvaccinated members of CAF to face formal proceedings - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Defence Department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier says reviews had been launched against 100 Armed Forces members by the end of December for repeatedly refusing to get their jabs.




					globalnews.ca
				




Related


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jan 2022)

Anecdotally I've heard of a few people who were denied VRs because their trades were under strength, so they just refused the vaccine, took the release when offered and then promptly went to a civilian clinic to get vaccinated. I dont think this is gonna turn out how the CAF thinks it is.


----------



## brihard (14 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> Over 900 unvaccinated members of CAF to face formal proceedings - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Defence Department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier says reviews had been launched against 100 Armed Forces members by the end of December for repeatedly refusing to get their jabs.
> ...


Kinda sloppy writing. Does that mean 100/900 who were into remedial measures went to the point of C&P? Clearly the author didn’t do the necessary background research to understand the remedial measures system. It makes it sound like the troops in question were required to attempt counselling, and placed on probation, due to a bit of a botch job in how C&P is described.

If they’re relying on Catherine Christensen for their lawsuit, that may not go well. She’s one of the counsel whose arguments just got ripped apart in the injunction application that was rejected in _Neri_.


----------



## Quirky (14 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Anecdotally I've heard of a few people who were denied VRs because their trades were under strength, so they just refused the vaccine, took the release when offered and then promptly went to a civilian clinic to get vaccinated. I dont think this is gonna turn out how the CAF thinks it is.


That's brilliant. Just goes to show that 6 months waiting to release under normal circumstances is utter crap.


----------



## Furniture (14 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> That's brilliant. Just goes to show that 6 months waiting to release under normal circumstances is utter crap.


Sure, let the troops put in two weeks notice, so long as the CAF can boot problem children with two weeks notice as well. 

From what I have heard, none of the folks refusing the vaccines are any loss to the CAF. It's does serve as a great "out" for those who's pride wouldn't allow them to release when it became apparent the CAF wasn't the right place for them.


----------



## brihard (14 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> That's brilliant. Just goes to show that 6 months waiting to release under normal circumstances is utter crap.


Agreed. If they want out, let them out. There will be short term stings at times, but people who don’t want to be there are a liability.


----------



## grayzone (14 Jan 2022)

For context: a misplaced military immunization booklet caused me an entire:  A-Z re-vaccination, just to avoid DAG'ing delays ten years ago.

My reaction to this is I find it ...unfathomable

   On the other hand, if these were Mefloquine Mass Tort Action Class Members, I could possibly understand a certain reluctance...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Anecdotally I've heard of a few people who were denied VRs because their trades were under strength, so they just refused the vaccine, took the release when offered and then promptly went to a civilian clinic to get vaccinated. I dont think this is gonna turn out how the CAF thinks it is.



Did any of those released have a remaining period of obligatory service?  Could possibly be a "novel" (pun intended) approach to getting out early without fully paying back expensive education or training.  Do any guidelines for this policy include mention of those on a term of obligatory service?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jan 2022)

Not that I had heard but that's an interesting point to consider. There's an even better twist, someone not being allowed to release could get vaccinated and refuse to attest to their status and be offered a VR. Truly a gongshow.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Not that I had heard but that's an interesting point to consider. There's an even better twist, someone not being allowed to release could get vaccinated and refuse to attest to their status and be offered a VR. Truly a gongshow.


I think there are already process in place for people that are forcefully released without having completed a restricted release period, or an obligatory service period.  This is not a new thing. What is new is that it is done for failing to attest or receive COVID-19 vaccination.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (17 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> All of these pages upon pages, in this and other threads about mandated vaccination, remind me of one single sentence I read on here,


Would much rather die a certain death protecting the freedom of Canadians.
Now we have to take the shot to protect the profits of pfizer? While statistics Canada says no increase in excess mortality greater than the common cold. When it hasn't been approved by health Canada. It was previously approved under an interm order, now approved under food and drug regulations under foreign authority. Or is this fake news?





						Explanatory note: Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19 - Canada.ca
					

Explanatory note for The Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19




					www.canada.ca
				








						Food and Drug Regulations
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
				








						Drug and vaccine authorizations for COVID-19: Applications received - Canada.ca
					

Under the interim order, a company can submit an application for the use of a drug or vaccine against COVID-19.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Would much rather die a certain death protecting the freedom of Canadians.
> Now we have to take the shot to protect the profits of pfizer? While statistics Canada says no increase in excess mortality greater than the common cold. When it hasn't been approved by health Canada. It was previously approved under an interm order, now approved under food and drug regulations under foreign authority. Or is this fake news?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (17 Jan 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


>


May as well go full Alex Jones and get banned.








						PolitiFact - No, Pfizer’s head of research didn’t say the COVID-19 vaccine will make women infertile
					

As people start to receive Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, social media users continue to share misinformation about the inje




					www.politifact.com
				



FACT CHECK The vaccine does not cause infertility. 


> "Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2," the letter says. "Syncytin-1… which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses … and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case, this would then prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile."





> Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study
> 
> 
> In this brief communication we are showing original research results with early estimates from Danish nationwide databases of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against the novel SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) up to five months after a primary vaccination series with the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273...
> ...


Vaccine effectiveness by week. This data is also seen in Germany and other European countries. I'm grateful for the sacrifice of the lives of those who chose to take this shot.


			https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-sars-cov2-whole-genome-sequencing-epi-summary.pdf?sc_lang=en
		

Looks like natural immunity is on the table with a minimum of rare and adverse side-effects. I do feel bad for those with the sunk-cost fallacy.
Anyways, it's in the release from the CDS. You must take this shot or you are disloyal to Canada. So just get the shot you sexist racist misogynistic bigots (Prime Minister Trudeaus words not mine) *



*They also say there is no religious reason to not take these shots.. Meanwhile they are made from abortions. No the vaccines do not contain abortions. They are made from abortions.
Thankfully immunizebc is ready to debunk my previous statement:








						Do COVID-19 vaccines contain fetal cells? Were abortions performed to make the vaccines?
					





					immunizebc.ca
				





> However, the cell lines were used in the very early stages of research and development of these vaccines to test 'proof of concept’ (to test that the vaccines could work).


I heard it was more than that from leaked pfizer documents that the US courts have ordered sealed untill.... 2074? lmao.
edit: source on sealed documents claim: fda wants 55 years to process foia request - Google Search
edit: source on claim that CAF members were not ordered to be vaccinated but ordered to submit to a loyalty test,  CDS directive 002 on CAF COVID-19 vaccination – Implementation of Accommodations and Administrative Action - Canada.ca
edit: Source on claim about statscan: Excess mortality in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic  Sure. By day and week it can be higher sometimes. But overall by month for each province?  It's just not there.
Edit: This is exactly where I am now, who radicalized me? It was you.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Jan 2022)




----------



## Haggis (17 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> May as well go full Alex Jones and get banned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There you go again, bringing facts into an Internet argument.

I often tell this story at work to my vaccine-hesitant civilian co-workers.

In 2002 I deployed to the Republic of Georgia for a NATO-led exercise.  I went to the Immunization Clinic at NDHQ with my tasking message in hand.  They said "you don't need any shots to go to Georgia."

I said "not that Georgia, the other one."

"There's another one?"  

They had a world map on the wall.  So I said "Find Russia.  Go south.  That Georgia."

"Oh.... you're getting everything."  And I thought I saw her smile when she said it.

So one more shot isn't likely to kill me.  In fact it may keep me alive so I can continue to post little stories here at Army.ca.


----------



## Bluebulldog (17 Jan 2022)

Misses muffett said:


> Not sure which study you speak of. However autism rates have increased with increased number of various vaccines. Resulting in a positive correlation. No study needed.



That is a reach at best.

Coincidentally diagnosis of ADD, ADHD and a number of other "behavioral labels" within the education system have also risen. 

Less because of any vaccine, and more from "educators" who literally went from HS, to Uni, to Teachers College without a scrap of actual experience with kids ( particularly males). 

Timmy doesn't want to sit in a chair for 7 hours of the day? Easy peasy, diagnose him, and give him a handful of Adderall. Problem solved. 

The education system rushes to have assessments done, and diagnoses delivered, because it's the easy road.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (17 Jan 2022)

Haggis said:


> There you go again, bringing facts into an Internet argument.
> 
> I often tell this story at work to my vaccine-hesitant civilian co-workers.
> 
> ...


Excellent.
Most of those were actually vaccines as per the 2018 definition of the word. You got the shot.  It was approved by health Canada. It was extremely safe. What was it? 15 people die a year from each vaccine like polio. Nothing, a drop in the bucket for the greater good. And then at MOST you took a second dose, and that was it. You were immune.  AND IF YOU GOT INJURED YOU COULD SUE! I'm not vaccine hesitant. It feels like I've had at least 20.
Then these shots came out. Brand spanking new mRNA juice, JUST TRUST THE SCIENCE, no long term studies needed! Also, these shots are behind a legal liability shield, you can no longer sue them for adverse events. (Edit: But don't worry Canada has just rolled this out: Programme de soutien aux victimes d’une vaccination to help)
"Health Canada has authorized the sale of this COVID-19 vaccine under an Interim Order."
The laws have been changed or amended to allow them to be "rapidly brought to market".





						COVID-19 vaccine safety: Report on side effects following immunization - Canada.ca
					

Information about any adverse events following immunization (AEFI) that individuals have reported after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in Canada. These adverse events are not necessarily related to the vaccine.




					health-infobase.canada.ca
				



Meanwhile governments started inflating death tolls:








						Fact check: 94% of individuals with additional causes of death still had COVID-19
					

Shared thousands of times on Facebook, posts claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “quietly updated” its COVID-19 data “to admit that only 6% of all the 153,504 (U.S.) deaths recorded actually died from (COVID-19).” According to the posts, the CDC...




					www.reuters.com
				



Instead of dying from cancer or lung failure, every death WITH covid is called a covid death. One particular case in Canada:


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/covid-comorbidities-alberta-spitzer-1.6212510
		

Suddenly there are more vaccine deaths and injuries than every other vaccine in the past twenty years. Combined.  Yes, still extremely unlikely (for now) that you are harmed by this in the short term .01% (source: health Canada as of this post). How about in 5 years?  Now we know that the covid-19 vaccines (I use the term vaccine loosely) has many rare cases of side effects:
Rare Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), rare  myocarditis, rare capillary leak syndrome, rare Thrombocytopenia, rare facial paralysis/ bells palsy, rare cardiac arrest, rare kidney injury, rare liver injury, rare strokes, rare spinal cord inflammation, rare fetal growth restriction, rare spontaneous abortions,  and rare skin immune reactions.
Almost every other shot (I'll use Polio as an example) the most common side effect is being allergic. We don't even know if it has any other side effects because they are so rare. Poliomyelitis vaccine: Canadian Immunization Guide - Canada.ca

So that takes us back to the topic of this thread. Disobeying an unlawful/unethical order.
They couldn't mandate this shot. That would be illegal. In order *to get around* that, the directive was given as a loyalty test.   So that's what it is. Take this experimental juice (that has yet to have any measure of approval that real vaccines have had) that may irreparably harm your body when we KNOW it doesn't stop transmission and we know the average CAF member should have an extremely high survival rate.
Legal or illegal? This one will have to be decided in court. It is likely the court will trample on the person.








						Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson for November 29, 1995 | GoComics.com
					

Calvin:  These are interesting times.  We don't trust the government, we don't trust the legal system, we don't trust the media, and we don't trust each other!  We've undermined all authority, and with it, the basis for replacing it!  Hobbes:  "Interesting" is a mild way of putting it.  Calvin...




					www.gocomics.com


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Excellent.
> Most of those were actually vaccines as per the 2018 definition of the word. You got the shot.  It was approved by health Canada. It was extremely safe. What was it? 15 people die a year from each vaccine like polio. Nothing, a drop in the bucket for the greater good. And then at MOST you took a second dose, and that was it. You were immune.  AND IF YOU GOT INJURED YOU COULD SUE! I'm not vaccine hesitant. It feels like I've had at least 20.
> Then these shots came out. Brand spanking new mRNA juice, JUST TRUST THE SCIENCE, no long term studies needed! Also, these shots are behind a legal liability shield, you can no longer sue them for adverse events. (Edit: But don't worry Canada has just rolled this out: Programme de soutien aux victimes d’une vaccination to help)
> "Health Canada has authorized the sale of this COVID-19 vaccine under an Interim Order."
> ...


Have you decided on what post CAF career you are aiming for?

Because I’m pretty sure the job field is getting more and more limited as various industries regulate and have vaccine mandates.


----------



## dimsum (17 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> So that takes us back to the topic of this thread. Disobeying an unlawful/unethical order.  They couldn't mandate this shot. That would be illegal.


Uh, I'm not sure if you've heard, but they just did. 

Legally.

Best of luck on your post-CAF career.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> Have you decided on what post CAF career you are aiming for?
> 
> Because I’m pretty sure the job field is getting more and more limited as various industries regulate and have vaccine mandates.



Entrepreneurs are finding ways to make money off of both the 'jabless', and employers 'sucking wind' because of lack of staff:


Job sites for unvaccinated thrive as vaccine mandates exclude employees​
Jabless Jobs is currently advertising about 70 listings. Many are in the construction and trades sector, but there are also postings for chefs, dentists, caregivers, massage therapists, a hairdresser, early childhood educators and tutors for children with special needs.

The company’s website describes itself as an employment service to “connect non discriminatory employers with like minded job seekers.” Employers can list jobs publicly or anonymously. A tracker at the top of the website claims it has had about 75,000 views between Nov. 25 and Dec. 7.

Despite many having strong opinions on COVID-19 vaccines, most people refused to be quoted on the record. Many asked that their company not be mentioned in any story, despite the job listing being posted in a public forum. Three company representatives just responded with abuse and claims the “mainstream media” is corrupt.










						Job sites for unvaccinated thrive as vaccine mandates exclude employees  | Globalnews.ca
					

A new company is helping unvaccinated Canadians find work, as provinces refuse to introduce vaccine mandates in the private sector.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Jan 2022)

Mostly entry level jobs on there, but have no real issue with the concept. Having said that, bit strange to see direct customer service jobs with no vaccine requirements. If I need to show proof of vaccination (or approved exemption) to go to a store, what sense does it make for the employees to not be vaccinated to also go to the store to work? I think that kind of thing would just get people to shop somewhere else, even if it's not required. If I had some kind of compromised immune system, I'd be kind of pissed off to find out the dentist or someone else wasn't vaccinated.

Lots of jobs though where you can do it remotely or have very limited contact with people though, so why not? Did notice one of them was EA to the CEO of Rebel News, which seems on brand.

Having said that, not being vaccinated is going to really limit all life options, and likely make it impossible to travel outside the country, so wondering if we are setting up a marginalized minority to drift further into their insane echo chambers?


----------



## dimsum (17 Jan 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Having said that, not being vaccinated is going to really limit all life options, and likely make it impossible to travel outside the country, so wondering if we are setting up a marginalized minority to drift further into their insane echo chambers?


yes.


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> If I need to show proof of vaccination (or approved exemption) to go to a store, what sense does it make for the employees to not be vaccinated to also go to the store to work?


i might be wrong here but I think Government can impose rules on things like capacities for health and safety reasons but are limited on what they can impose on the employees as that is likely an employer-employee thing governed by other rules.  My son works at a restaurant but has not had to show proof of vaccination once.  Just screening questions every time he goes in.  I too find it strange but my guess is jurisdiction.  Which is why the Province and Feds can mandate vaccines for its employees and contractors but can’t for Jack and Jill at the local tuck shop.


----------



## Quirky (17 Jan 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Mostly entry level jobs on there, but have no real issue with the concept. Having said that, bit strange to see direct customer service jobs with no vaccine requirements. If I need to show proof of vaccination (or approved exemption) to go to a store, what sense does it make for the employees to not be vaccinated to also go to the store to work? I think that kind of thing would just get people to shop somewhere else, even if it's not required. If I had some kind of compromised immune system, I'd be kind of pissed off to find out the dentist or someone else wasn't vaccinated.



It’s not up to the dentist or server to protect you, that’s YOUR responsibility. At this point you need to assume everyone you come into contact with has Covid and assess your own risks.


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s not up to the dentist or server to protect you, that’s YOUR responsibility. At this point you need to assume everyone you come into contact with has Covid and assess your own risks.


So you’re ok with with food service types and dentists not wearing masks or gloves?  How about dental tools?  Ok with them not cleaning those or is that their responsibility? 

What if they have a cold or the flu.  Ok with them working or should they stay home and take a sick day? 

Sorry but some people still have responsibilities to protect their clients and patients.  assessing risk with my dentist is pretty easy,  he’s vacced.  Has a new air filtration unit and has done a bang up job minimizing the risk.  He gets my business.


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Excellent.
> Most of those were actually vaccines as per the 2018 definition of the word. You got the shot.  It was approved by health Canada. It was extremely safe. What was it? 15 people die a year from each vaccine like polio. Nothing, a drop in the bucket for the greater good. And then at MOST you took a second dose, and that was it. You were immune.  AND IF YOU GOT INJURED YOU COULD SUE! I'm not vaccine hesitant. It feels like I've had at least 20.
> Then these shots came out. Brand spanking new mRNA juice, JUST TRUST THE SCIENCE, no long term studies needed! Also, these shots are behind a legal liability shield, you can no longer sue them for adverse events. (Edit: But don't worry Canada has just rolled this out: Programme de soutien aux victimes d’une vaccination to help)
> "Health Canada has authorized the sale of this COVID-19 vaccine under an Interim Order."
> ...


Good news is, absolutely nobody is forcing you to get the vaccine. If you don’t want to do your job anymore, they won’t keep making you do it. Best of luck in whatever you do next.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s not up to the dentist or server to protect you, that’s YOUR responsibility. At this point you need to assume everyone you come into contact with has Covid and assess your own risks.


So I guess all these food safety rules I enforce at restaurants and grocery stores dont matter huh, guess I'll start telling people handling saw meat they don't have to wash their hands, not their responsibility to protect you from food borne pathogens right?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (17 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s not up to the *dentist* or server to protect you, that’s YOUR responsibility. At this point you need to assume everyone you come into contact with has Covid and assess your own risks.



Actually, it is up to the dentist (like all other self-regulated health professionals) to protect you.  Not only do they have a moral obligation, they have a legal obligation.  Using the Alberta Dental Association and College Code of Ethics as an example:

Article A1: Service
As a primary health care provider, *a dentist's first responsibility is a duty of care to the patient*. As such, the competent and timely *delivery of safe care* appropriate to the presenting clinical circumstances and services sought by the patient *shall be the most important aspect of that responsibility*.


----------



## Quirky (18 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> So I guess all these food safety rules I enforce at restaurants and grocery stores dont matter huh, guess I'll start telling people handling saw meat they don't have to wash their hands, not their responsibility to protect you from food borne pathogens right?



Food safety rules and asking a server or dentist their vaccination status are two different things. That’s like saying everyone should have breathalyzers in their vehicles because I don’t know if other drivers are drunk. Immunocompromised are responsible for themselves, it’s not my responsibility to protect everyone from everything from something I may or may not have.


----------



## btrudy (18 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Immunocompromised are responsible for themselves, it’s not my responsibility to protect everyone from everything from something I may or may not have.


Look... I don't really know how to explain this, but you're actually *supposed *to care about the well being of others. Like, if you don't, it makes you a bad person. You're supposed to be willing to do things to protect others in society. Society wouldn't function properly if that wasn't the case.


----------



## Bluebulldog (18 Jan 2022)

btrudy said:


> Look... I don't really know how to explain this, but you're actually *supposed *to care about the well being of others. Like, if you don't, it makes you a bad person. You're supposed to be willing to do things to protect others in society. Society wouldn't function properly if that wasn't the case.



....we are already seeing the selfish, and self serving...and it's detriment to society. 

I think much of the divide between jabbed and not, is the fact that those of us who understand the idea of being selfless, are shocked at those we have associated with who have revealed their true colours.


----------



## Quirky (18 Jan 2022)

btrudy said:


> Look... I don't really know how to explain this, but you're actually *supposed *to care about the well being of others. Like, if you don't, it makes you a bad person. You're supposed to be willing to do things to protect others in society. Society wouldn't function properly if that wasn't the case.



Not since the start of covid did we ever shut down the lives of the young and healthy to "protect" the elderly and sick. It still didn't work. If you are still afraid that everything and anything out there will kill you, maybe that's your problem. Worrying about what other people are doing and if they are vaccinated or not must be a terrible way to live your life. The immunocompromised need to take some responsibility for themselves, the rest of society needs to move on with life, without restriction.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Not since the start of covid did we ever shut down the lives of the young and healthy to "protect" the elderly and sick. It still didn't work. If you are still afraid that everything and anything out there will kill you, maybe that's your problem. Worrying about what other people are doing and if they are vaccinated or not must be a terrible way to live your life. The immunocompromised need to take some responsibility for themselves, the rest of society needs to move on with life, without restriction.


I am not scared but I am willing to face minuscule inconveniences if it means I am less likely to infect someone at risk. You may not know people that are at risk but most people have family members or friends that are.  They are just being careful.  If you do and you’ll willing to take that gamble on that person’s life, or willing to not see those people for the forseeable future, it speaks of your character. In any case, the governments have a duty of care for those people too.

When wearing a mask, not being able to go to all the places I want, when I want and getting a shot are reasons to be upset, you know you live a comfy life…..


----------



## btrudy (18 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Not since the start of covid did we ever shut down the lives of the young and healthy to "protect" the elderly and sick. It still didn't work. If you are still afraid that everything and anything out there will kill you, maybe that's your problem. Worrying about what other people are doing and if they are vaccinated or not must be a terrible way to live your life. The immunocompromised need to take some responsibility for themselves, the rest of society needs to move on with life, without restriction.



Translation: I don't care if the immunocompromised are sentenced to never be able to safely leave the house, as long as I'm not slightly inconvenienced by having to get a free vaccine.


----------



## Quirky (18 Jan 2022)

btrudy said:


> Translation: I don't care if the immunocompromised are sentenced to never be able to safely leave the house, as long as I'm not slightly inconvenienced by having to get a free vaccine.


Translation: your health your problem.


----------



## btrudy (18 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Translation: your health your problem.


Again, I don't really think I should need to be explaining to you that you're supposed to care about the well being of others. Not doing so is an ethical failure on your part.


----------



## QV (18 Jan 2022)

btrudy said:


> Translation: I don't care if the immunocompromised are sentenced to never be able to safely leave the house, as long as I'm not slightly inconvenienced by having to get a free vaccine.


Because that's all been working out well so far.


----------



## QV (18 Jan 2022)

My haven't we started down this socialist utopia in fantastic form.


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2022)

QV said:


> My haven't we started down this socialist utopia in fantastic form.


I thought you were lamenting unregulated capitalism


----------



## dimsum (18 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Translation: your health your problem.


With that line, I guess you're not going to a doctor or the hospital if you get sick.


----------



## Remius (18 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> With that line, I guess you're not going to a doctor or the hospital if you get sick.


Of course not.  If it affects him *then* it’s important.  Pay attention.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Translation: your health your problem.



Your subordinates, if they let you have any, must truly hate going to work when you’re there.


----------



## Quirky (18 Jan 2022)

btrudy said:


> Again, I don't really think I should need to be explaining to you that you're supposed to care about the well being of others. Not doing so is an ethical failure on your part.



Ya because we cared about each other before 2020.


----------



## btrudy (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Ya because we cared about each other before 2020.


The fact that you respond to the notion of caring about other people's well being with laughter is a pretty damning indication of your faulty moral compass.


----------



## Bluebulldog (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Translation: your health your problem.



You pay for your own healthcare?

Otherwise you are part of the grand social contract we are all a part of. That includes those who have higher needs than others. 

How far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go?


----------



## Remius (19 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> You pay for your own healthcare?
> 
> Otherwise you are part of the grand social contract we are all a part of. That includes those who have higher needs than others.
> 
> How far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go?


Even better.  He’s getting a level of health care that is above the average Canadian’s.  

The hypocrisy of his statements about taking responsibility for yourself and healthcare is your problem is that he joined a government subsidized tax payer paid for organisation that will literally hold his hand for most of his life and provide for him after he leaves.  

And as well, will chastise anyone who thinks serving Canadians in any way shape or form is somehow beneath what the CAF does.


----------



## Bluebulldog (19 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> Even better. He’s getting a level of health care that is above the average Canadian’s.
> 
> The hypocrisy of his statements about taking responsibility for yourself and healthcare is your problem is that he joined a government subsidized tax payer paid for organisation that will literally hold his hand for most of his life and provide for him after he leaves.
> 
> And as well, will chastise anyone who thinks serving Canadians in any way shape or form is somehow beneath what the CAF does.



Spot on.


----------



## brihard (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Translation: your health your problem.


Bud, you have some of the best access to taxpayer funded healthcare in Canada. Your employer literally provides you a _dentist_, plus prescription medication and psychological services. Have you even existed in Canadian society as a functioning adult outside of the military? You seem ludicrously unaware of how very good you’ve got it because* the taxpayer provides you with very good coverage.


----------



## dimsum (19 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Bud, you have some of the best access to taxpayer funded healthcare in Canada. Your employer literally provides you a _dentist_, plus prescription medication and psychological services. Have you even existed in Canadian society as a functioning adult outside of the military? You seem ludicrously unaware of how very good you’ve got it because* the taxpayer provides you with very good coverage.


The kicker is that those meds and stuff like crutches are _free_.  

My friends and family cannot believe that I don't pay a cent for medical, dental, pharma, and vision.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2022)

brihard said:


> Bud, you have some of the best access to taxpayer funded healthcare in Canada. Your employer literally provides you a _dentist_, plus prescription medication and psychological services. Have you even existed in Canadian society as a functioning adult outside of the military? You seem ludicrously unaware of how very good you’ve got it because* the taxpayer provides you with very good coverage.


I think most members of the CAF are unaware of how terrible of an experience health care outside of the military can be.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> I think most members of the CAF are unaware of how terrible of an experience health care outside of the military can be.



Depends what coverage your employer provides ( including post-retirement ), in addition to basic OHIP.

When I read posts about releasing, I remember the massive "getting back in" super-threads.   

Fortunately, the CAF takes people back. Not all employers do.


----------



## Remius (19 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> Depends what coverage your employer provides ( including post-retirement ), in addition to basic OHIP.
> 
> When I read posts about releasing, I remember the massive "getting back in" super-threads.
> 
> Fortunately, the CAF takes people back. Not all employers do.


I get great coverage in the PS.  But I still have to pay for parts of it out of pocket, And find a doctor and find a dentist or specialist.  

Not complaining. Because it’s way better than the average Canadian.   But the CAF is another level up.


----------



## Bluebulldog (19 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> I get great coverage in the PS. But I still have to pay for parts of it out of pocket, And find a doctor and find a dentist or specialist.



Same this end. 

But let's be honest...I also have to leave the site to get my dental work done, as opposed to members who can just pop in during their work day...

Not complaining either....definitely have it better than most Canadians.


----------



## Haggis (19 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> I get great coverage in the PS.  But I still have to pay for parts of it out of pocket, And find a doctor and find a dentist or specialist.
> 
> Not complaining. Because it’s way better than the average Canadian.   But the CAF is another level up.


The PSHCP is good, not great.  If you're in a physically demanding job you will run out of chiropractor and massage benefits in less than three months. 

I joined the PS and went Class A in 2013. I had to find my own doctor.  That took 18 months and I got a really good one who understood service related injuries (former US Army B Surg).  That one retired in 2020 and I have been without ever since.  The only doctors taking new patients in my area are a 90 minute drive away.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (19 Jan 2022)

Good day,
This will be my last post here with possibly the exception of the Communications and Electronics if I re-establish myself. I always loved military communications, I have the the digital battle box nearly memorized and I do those types of communications on my own time.

I have my marching orders.

Despite any waspishness, I very much appreciate all of you and all of your posts. It has been excellent to be here and share my knowledge. Of course it has been also excellent to be able to search for older knowledge that has been saved in this repository. Thank you all so very much for your time and effort.

I don't know where life is going to take me next. I thought when it was time to cross the bridge I would burn it to light my path forward. Fortunately, thanks to the amazing people I have worked with, nothing has caught fire.

Someday our country will have freedom again.

With my most sincerest love, I wish you all the very best.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> I get great coverage in the PS.



Depends on the employer. 

I'm on Health Care Spending Account ( HCSA ) until age 75. I'll start worrying about it then, if I'm still around.


----------



## Remius (19 Jan 2022)

Haggis said:


> The PSHCP is good, not great.  If you're in a physically demanding job you will run out of chiropractor and massage benefits in less than three months.
> 
> I joined the PS and went Class A in 2013. I had to find my own doctor.  That took 18 months and I got a really good one who understood service related injuries (former US Army B Surg).  That one retired in 2020 and I have been without ever since.  The only doctors taking new patients in my area are a 90 minute drive away.


I had the same issue when I went Class A in 2011.  Took me about the same time to find a doctor.  And that was because an ex girlfriend from HS is a nurse in a clinic put a good word in for me and got me in.


----------



## Bluebulldog (19 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Good day,
> This will be my last post here with possibly the exception of the Communications and Electronics if I re-establish myself. I always loved military communications, I have the the digital battle box nearly memorized and I do those types of communications on my own time.
> 
> I have my marching orders.
> ...



Best of luck. Sincerely.


----------



## brihard (19 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Good day,
> This will be my last post here with possibly the exception of the Communications and Electronics if I re-establish myself. I always loved military communications, I have the the digital battle box nearly memorized and I do those types of communications on my own time.
> 
> I have my marching orders.
> ...


Best of luck, and I mean that genuinely. Hopefully some combination of circumstances allows you to serve your country again in future.


----------



## kev994 (19 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> The kicker is that those meds and stuff like crutches are _free_.
> 
> My friends and family cannot believe that I don't pay a cent for medical, dental, pharma, and vision.


I know! They give me free Lactaid just so that I can eat ice cream! It’s crazy! That crap’s not terribly expensive but not exactly cheap.


----------



## dimsum (19 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> When I read posts about releasing, I remember the massive "getting back in" super-threads.


Yep.

Strangely, not many of those on CAF Reddit.  Maybe a bit hard to sheepishly say "well...I'm back" after anonymously bashing the CAF and talking about getting out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Good day,
> This will be my last post here with possibly the exception of the Communications and Electronics if I re-establish myself. I always loved military communications, I have the the digital battle box nearly memorized and I do those types of communications on my own time.
> 
> I have my marching orders.
> ...


Are you being released from the CAF because you refuse to get vaccinated?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> Depends what coverage your employer provides ( including post-retirement ), in addition to basic OHIP.
> 
> When I read posts about releasing, I remember the massive "getting back in" super-threads.
> 
> Fortunately, the CAF takes people back. Not all employers do.



Just to note; those who are facing release for failure to comply with vaccination requirements will likely find it hard to return to the CAF in the future.


----------



## Quirky (19 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> Yep.
> 
> Strangely, not many of those on CAF Reddit.  Maybe a bit hard to sheepishly say "well...I'm back" after anonymously bashing the CAF and talking about getting out.


Things are way worse now than 15+ years ago. There is zero reason to get back in, the CAF is essentially falling apart at the seams. Just look at that article of our manning shortfalls. No one is clawing to get back in and boast about it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Things are way worse now than 15+ years ago. There is zero reason to get back in, the CAF is essentially falling apart at the seams. Just look at that article of our manning shortfalls. No one is clawing to get back in and boast about it.


Completely disagree.

You can make $70K+ a year in the CAF working 25 hour work weeks with instant access to health care and benefits.


----------



## brihard (19 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Completely disagree.
> 
> You can make $70K+ a year in the CAF working 25 hour work weeks with instant access to health care and benefits.


Pick the right trade and life can be pretty sweet. Then, once you‘be been an NCO for a while, get them to pay you your salary to be a student for four years, and commission for that sweet officer’s pay and pension. There are worse fates.

Obviously some trade and base combinations can be the exact opposite, and suck a lot.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Your subordinates, if they let you have any, must truly hate going to work when you’re there.


Why? It sounds like he respects them enough to allow them to make their own decisions.


----------



## Quirky (19 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Completely disagree.
> 
> You can make $70K+ a year in the CAF working 25 hour work weeks with instant access to health care and benefits.


The 10k+ empty positions say otherwise.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2022)

My sister has never said a bad word to me about the CAF. Maybe she privately talked smack about it with her friends, I don't know.
But, not in front of our family.

I respect her for that, and hold the rather old-fashioned opinon if you are cashing a pay cheque, speak well of your organization.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Jan 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Why? It sounds like he respects them enough to allow them to make their own decisions.


You do know how an army works, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jan 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Why? It sounds like he respects them enough to allow them to make their own decisions.



He sounds like someone who doesn’t give 2 shits about anyone other than himself.   Allowing subs to “make their own decisions” isn’t always the best COA.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just to note; those who are facing release for failure to comply with vaccination requirements will likely find it hard to return to the CAF in the future.



Or find any job, in the CAF or not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> The 10k+ empty positions say otherwise.


Not related. 

There's 12K empty positions and 10K positions filled by sink and injured non-deployable members.

Lots of Canadians just don't want to be in the military regardless of all the money and benefits that come with it. Not everyone can handle it.

There's tons of reasons to get back in the forces if you can. It's a personal choice.


----------



## Quirky (19 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> If you are unhappy, GTFO





Jarnhamar said:


> Not everyone can handle it.



What’s your next excuse, “do it for the institution or don’t retreat into retirement?”.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> What’s your next excuse, “do it for the institution or don’t retreat into retirement?”.



Question; are you still in?  If the answer is yes, the next question is…why?


----------



## brihard (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> What’s your next excuse, “do it for the institution or don’t retreat into retirement?”.


What are you going on about? Jarnhamar's exactly correct. Not everyone can handle it. The military isn't for everybody. For others, it's a really great go.. For many, probably somewhere in the middle- it pays the bills, and has job security, benefits and a pension and usually isn't too hard but very occasionally is.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> What’s your next excuse, “do it for the institution or don’t retreat into retirement?”.



I was not referring to you specifically, Quirky. 

I meant anybody,  on any job.


----------



## Quirky (19 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Question; are you still in?  If the answer is yes, the next question is…why?


It’s entertaining.


----------



## Booter (19 Jan 2022)

materialpigeonfibre said:


> Good day,
> This will be my last post here with possibly the exception of the Communications and Electronics if I re-establish myself. I always loved military communications, I have the the digital battle box nearly memorized and I do those types of communications on my own time.
> 
> I have my marching orders.
> ...


Take care of yourself and make sure you land on your feet.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Jan 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> You do know how an army works, right?


Yes, but there is a difference in go fight this enemy, and I respect your right to make your own health decisions. 


Eye In The Sky said:


> He sounds like someone who doesn’t give 2 shits about anyone other than himself.   Allowing subs to “make their own decisions” isn’t always the best COA.


Why because he wants people to be able to make decisions for themselves? The whole selfish argument is pretty weak, you could argue anyone who is in the hospital for any sort of somewhat self inflicted injury or treatment taking up hospital space is selfish as well. I would argue it is pretty selfish to believe you have any right to dictate what someone has to do with their body, especially after they have refused to consent to what you want.

Got cancer because you smoke? Selfish. In the hospital because your liver is failing and your a alcoholic? Selfish. Taking up medical staffs time because your ODing off drugs? Selfish. Having a heart attack because your overweight and unfit? Selfish. 

He has many very valid questions. For example what is a acceptable death rate before we open up again? When you consider Covid only has a mortality rate 4 times what the flu has, if it went down to 3 times would we open up again? 2 times? Equal? 

How many years are we willing to sacrifice to mainly keep people who are close to end of life alive slightly longer? How many people are going to die because we have decided to postpone surgeries? Suicides? Wasting the best years of many lives, or ruining the last few of the ones we care about. This has already gone on for over 2.5% of a average Canadians life, how much more are we willing to sacrifice?

The canary in the coal mine isn't that people are dying, it is that our healthcare system is trash and barely sustains itself at the best of times. How long are we going to be in lockdown to just allow a broken system to limp along? 

As to the best COA, sometimes the leadership making the decision doesn't end well either, in many cases especially from a military standpoint it can result in many deaths. I am not sure I trust their judgement especially with the lack of accountability for their actions which seems to be the course of action both for the military and the government (such as allowing our healthcare system to get to the state it is in).


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> What’s your next excuse, “do it for the institution or don’t retreat into retirement?”.


It's a simple fact. Ever teach on a basic training course, PLQ or BMOQ?



Quirky said:


> It’s entertaining.


Is it? I thought you eluded to being retired thus able to speak your mind on behalf of all of us who can't.

So are you still serving or retired?


----------



## Quirky (19 Jan 2022)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Why because he wants people to be able to make decisions for themselves?



It’s the Army, don’t you know, you are told what to do.   I’ll support any decision my subs have, as long as they know the consequences. Don’t want the vaccine? Well these are you options now.

Same with people who have underlying health issues. At this point they need to take some personal responsibility and protect themselves from everyone else. Expecting society to cater to your problems forever is unrealistic. We have vaccines and unlimited boosters, fill your boots and open up everything. Drop all restrictions. Majority of deaths are 70+, unvaccinated and with health issues. Enough is enough.

Speaking of enough, this thread has lost its purpose. _eject eject_


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s the Army, don’t you know, you are told what to do.   I’ll support any decision my subs have, as long as they know the consequences. Don’t want the vaccine? Well these are you options now.
> 
> Same with people who have underlying health issues. At this point they need to take some personal responsibility and protect themselves from everyone else. Expecting society to cater to your problems forever is unrealistic. We have vaccines and unlimited boosters, fill your boots and open up everything. Drop all restrictions. Majority of deaths are 70+, unvaccinated and with health issues. Enough is enough.
> 
> Speaking of enough, this thread has lost its purpose. _eject eject_


So, you’re upset we are releasing 900 people but you’d be fine with thousands releasing because they can’t be guaranteed a work environment that won’t jeopardize their health (because they have underlying issues and need to protect themselves)?  Interesting perspective.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, you’re upset we are releasing 900 people but you’d be fine with thousands releasing because they can’t be guaranteed a work environment that won’t jeopardize their health (because they have underlying issues and need to protect themselves)?  Interesting perspective.


Since you still believe the vaccine stops transmission: How many CAF members are still working full time hours that are so sick or immunocompromised that they're at risk for severe COVID complications even though they're under the age of 60? If you're going to count all the morbidly obese people, I'd suggest the solution is release them, not someone who was never going to get really sick from COVID anyways. What are we going to do with those people when we admit COVID is endemic and we're working full time sans masks and distancing? They're still at risk and all we've accomplished is skirting ordering people to take a vaccine by ordering them to disclose medical information.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jan 2022)

We haven’t skirted ordering people to get vaccinated.   As an institution, the CAF has decided (rightly so IMO) to address those who don’t comply administratively only.  The order was given and is being enforced.  

I don’t think anyone believes the vaccination(s) will STOP transmission, it is one piece of a larger attempt to slow and lower transmission.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> If you're going to count all the morbidly obese people, I'd suggest the solution is release them,


Why is this even a discussion??  Of course they should be gone.....I was shocked a few years ago being at Petawawa Point and seeing some of the lard asses.    Frig, I remember back in the early 80's RSM Flanagan actually noticed I got a little bigger, [from the 30 waist size I'd had since school to a 32] and suggested " to step away from the dinner table".


----------



## dimsum (19 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> Drop all restrictions. Majority of deaths are 70+, unvaccinated and with health issues. Enough is enough.


They are still taking up hospital beds and staff, therefore those with other emergencies can't use them.  

Do you not see how this would be an issue?


----------



## Quirky (20 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> They are still taking up hospital beds and staff, therefore those with other emergencies can't use them.
> 
> Do you not see how this would be an issue?


It’s called triage. They would get the boot for other emergencies.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s called triage. They would get the boot for other emergencies.


And during that time the unvaccinated take more of their share of hospital beds, we burn our ressources out (materiel and human).


----------



## Quirky (20 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> And during that time the unvaccinated take more of their share of hospital beds, we burn our ressources out (materiel and human).



Yes that will be a problem, sort term. The faster this thing rips through the population the better. Enough of this theatre.


----------



## dimsum (20 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s called triage. They would get the boot for other emergencies.


Or...and stay with me here...we try not to overburden the system so that this triage isn't needed. 

Remember the whole point of the masks, vaccines, etc?  It originally was to slow the curve, so the healthcare system doesn't get overwhelmed. 



Quirky said:


> Yes that will be a problem, sort term. The faster this thing rips through the population the better. Enough of this theatre.


We said that about the OG Covid, Delta, and now this.  What's to say that another variant won't come up and we have this conversation again in 6 months?


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Jan 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Why is this even a discussion??  Of course they should be gone.....I was shocked a few years ago being at Petawawa Point and seeing some of the lard asses.    Frig, I remember back in the early 80's RSM Flanagan actually noticed I got a little bigger, [from the 30 waist size I'd had since school to a 32] and suggested " to step away from the dinner table".


Not all trades need to be in tip top shape.  I would argue many trades don’t need to be and future trades certainly won’t need to be (cyber operators for example).  No need to release productive people on the basis of weight.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Since you still believe the vaccine stops transmission: How many CAF members are still working full time hours that are so sick or immunocompromised that they're at risk for severe COVID complications even though they're under the age of 60? If you're going to count all the morbidly obese people, I'd suggest the solution is release them, not someone who was never going to get really sick from COVID anyways. What are we going to do with those people when we admit COVID is endemic and we're working full time sans masks and distancing? They're still at risk and all we've accomplished is skirting ordering people to take a vaccine by ordering them to disclose medical information.


People that have gone through cancer treatment, people with diagnosed high blood pressure, diabetes.  Yes, there are people with medical issues within the CAF.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> No need to release productive people on the basis of weight.



No need for "fat-shaming".

But, based on our "Fat troops in street" mega-threads, perhaps encourage some to lose weight.

I think the taxpayers have more confidence in an organization when their women and men in uniform look good.



> It originally was to slow the curve, so the healthcare system doesn't get overwhelmed.



Hopefully, "flatten the curve". As opposed to, "Let 'er rip!"


----------



## dimsum (20 Jan 2022)

mariomike said:


> Hopefully, "flatten the curve". As opposed to, "Let 'er rip!"


Yeah, bc that really worked well in Australia…

Narrator:  It didn’t.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Jan 2022)

Britain intends to rescind Covid measures effective next thursday, so we'll soon have some data on how effective that strategy is.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> It’s called triage. They would get the boot for other emergencies.



No, that's not triage.  That's denial of service.

I could provide links (_again . . . I've done so already in other threads_) to a few of the provincial pandemic triage protocols that, while most have been updated to account for the experience of Covid-19, have been in existence long before this current situation.  However my expectation is 1.  you won't read them, 2. you wouldn't care about the distinctions even if you did read them and 3. you'll still be the same selfish arsehole.


----------



## Haggis (20 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> We said that about the OG Covid, Delta, and now this.  What's to say that another variant won't come up and we have this conversation again in 6 months?


Since COVID 19 (original flavour) made it's debut, we've had two well publicized variants.  We've seen the slightly more contagious and somewhat deadlier DELTA and the highly contagious and considerably milder OMICRON, against which current vaccines are not as effective as originally thought. What we haven't seen yet is the highly contagious, deadly "hold my beer and watch this!" variant that may surface as the virus evolves to avoid the vaccines in use today.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jan 2022)

Haggis said:


> Since COVID 19 (original flavour) made it's debut, we've had two well publicized variants.  We've seen the slightly more contagious and somewhat deadlier DELTA and the highly contagious and considerably milder OMICRON, against which current vaccines are not as effective as originally thought. What we haven't seen yet is the highly contagious, deadly "hold my beer and watch this!" variant that may surface as the virus evolves to avoid the vaccines in use today.



Speak of the Devil....


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Jan 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> Britain intends to rescind Covid measures effective next thursday, so we'll soon have some data on how effective that strategy is.



Which really has nothing to do with calls for the PM to resign for being a lying bugger who totally didn't have parties at 10 Downing st during the full lockdowns, and is definitely not a distraction tactic to save his job (at the cost of British lives). Also, pay no attention to the brexit impacts crippling a number of export business, nothing to see there!


----------



## Bluebulldog (20 Jan 2022)

SupersonicMax said:


> Not all trades need to be in tip top shape.  I would argue many trades don’t need to be and future trades certainly won’t need to be (cyber operators for example).  No need to release productive people on the basis of weight.



Thus endeth universality of service. 

Good luck with that. 

2.4 The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that *CAF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties*, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification.

"Gee, I'd love to help, but I'm a lard a$$, maybe see if some of those jacked combat arms guys are around......"


----------



## QV (20 Jan 2022)

So it can only be political when reducing restrictions, but not the other way? But… if the executive was partying and ignoring restrictions, did they know something they weren’t sharing or were they just willing to take grave risks to laugh it up?


----------



## Remius (20 Jan 2022)

QV said:


> So it can only be political when reducing restrictions, but not the other way? But… if the executive was partying and ignoring restrictions, did they know something they weren’t sharing or were they just willing to take grave risks to laugh it up?


Are you saying you trust what is coming out the UK government?  Seems odd given your beliefs. 

Or is their decision supporting your confirmation bias.  

How does reopening support the hidden world agenda? Seems counterintuitive.  

And what about Doug Ford and the Ontario plan to reopen?  How does that fit into big pharma, big government and big media and their plan to keep this going?


----------



## QV (20 Jan 2022)

You’re so hostile Remius. What’s wrong?


----------



## btrudy (20 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> Thus endeth universality of service.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> ...


Universality of service can be determined based upon the existing FORCE test. People were proposing adding an additional "no fat people" rule. As we can see, fat people can still meet universality of service as determined by the FORCE test. 

I wouldn't be opposed to certain occupations that care a lot about fitness being allowed to determine their own fitness requirements (as determined by bone fide job requirements that can be above and beyond the requirements outlined for universality of service) and they can test themselves accordingly. But to propose kicking people out solely on the basis of aesthetics is rather asinine to me, especially considering that a lot of the occupations that would end up needlessly losing people when there isn't a bone fide job requirement above universality of service are also the ones who we're having some of the hardest times keeping people in.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2022)

Bluebulldog said:


> Thus endeth universality of service.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> ...



Lots of people that are obese in the medical definition can still serve well within the UoS requirements.  I'm not seeing how we can draw a direction line between the 2;  what is more important is _Can they do their job IAW their Occ Specs_ _can they pass the required fitness test_ _can they deploy and perform in a theatre of ops_, etc.

BMI is used in my trade medical requirements, but 'weight' and/or BMI aren't used solely to determine fitness for flight duties.  As that is the case, I can't see making an argument for more stringent standards for Cyber, HRA, Supply....etc.

If you're suggesting that the Cbt Arms trades don't have any "not-quite-poster-child" physiques....I'm sure that myth can easily be debunked.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2022)

btrudy said:


> I wouldn't be opposed to certain occupations that care a lot about fitness being allowed to determine their own fitness requirements (as determined by bone fide job requirements that can be above and beyond the requirements outlined for universality of service) and they can test themselves accordingly.



SOF, SAR Tech, Fire Fighter....examples of trades that already have higher than standard fitness requirements/fitness test standards.  There's no need to be opposed to it at all, it has been reality for....ever.


----------



## Remius (20 Jan 2022)

QV said:


> You’re so hostile Remius. What’s wrong?


Didn’t mean to intimidate you.

So any actual answers to those questions?   Just trying to see how your new fondness with government decisions that you like, matches up with your belief system.  

It’s pretty fascinating to be honest.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Jan 2022)

QV said:


> So it can only be political when reducing restrictions, but not the other way? But… if the executive was partying and ignoring restrictions, did they know something they weren’t sharing or were they just willing to take grave risks to laugh it up?


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't aware of the details.

For reference, their parties included when the entire country was in strict lockdown (including no contact outside your household). When Prince Philip died and the Queen was the only one in attendance at the state funeral due to COVID rules, you should probably not have  booze up in the PM's house.

Massive arrogance on their part, but a lot of them are public school kids of the Eton type, so inbred into making up their own rules or otherwise don't feel bound by restrictions on the little people.

Weirdly all the tighttening of restrictions in the UK came from their scientist board recommendations; they've had zero info coming out on why they are loosening restrictions from the actual scientists, so yes, I'm sceptical this isn't political due to the total lack of data to support the move.

When absolute lying wankers in their own party are calling out the PM for being a lying wanker, not a lot of faith in their sudden announcement being anything but political. It'd be funny if they weren't such a disaster.


----------



## Haggis (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> SOF, SAR Tech, Fire Fighter....examples of trades that already have higher than standard fitness requirements/fitness test standards.  There's no need to be opposed to it at all, it has been reality for....ever.


It's still failing the FORCE test (and associated "gold standard" MPFS) which would be used to punt people from the CAF.


----------



## kev994 (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> SOF, SAR Tech, Fire Fighter....examples of trades that already have higher than standard fitness requirements/fitness test standards.  There's no need to be opposed to it at all, it has been reality for....ever.


SARTechs had their own test when we were doing  Expres but now they’re on the FORCE test.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2022)

kev994 said:


> SARTechs had their own test when we were doing  Expres but now they’re on the FORCE test.


 Seriously?  Uhhhhhh.   Wow.


----------



## dimsum (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Seriously?  Uhhhhhh.   Wow.


Yeah.  Just that Silver is their Yellow.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2022)

Wait. There’s colours??


----------



## dimsum (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Wait. There’s colours??


Might not want to mention that on your next medical.


----------



## btrudy (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> SOF, SAR Tech, Fire Fighter....examples of trades that already have higher than standard fitness requirements/fitness test standards.  There's no need to be opposed to it at all, it has been reality for....ever.


Oh yes, there's certainly precedent. I've just always been a bit confused as to why you tended not to see the nice combat arms folks use something similar.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Jan 2022)

btrudy said:


> Oh yes, there's certainly precedent. I've just always been a bit confused as to why you tended not to see the nice combat arms folks use something similar.



The Army did do this with the current Force test and the previous one.  Adding the BFT to annual tests and now some strange mix of doing the force test in full FFO with a march (I did that intentionally) 

Or so I've been lead to believe.  Because you know, the Canada Army... Damn the CAF standard we need it harder!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2022)

I’m ex-cbt arms, so I’ve seen folks in those trades that have…less than stellar levels of fitness.


----------



## Quirky (20 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> We said that about the OG Covid, Delta, and now this.  What's to say that another variant won't come up and we have this conversation again in 6 months?



The goal of human existence is to ensure that none of us ever get a cold ever again.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’m ex-cbt arms, so I’ve seen folks in those trades that have…less than stellar levels of fitness.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> The goal of human existence is to ensure that none of us ever get a cold ever again.



The lack of your concern for the welfare of the average Canadian citizen, the smugness in your posts combined with a bit of drama reminds me of someone, but I just can’t seem to put my finger on it…


----------



## dimsum (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The lack of your concern for the welfare of the average Canadian citizen, the smugness in your posts combined with a bit of drama reminds me of someone, but I just can’t seem to put my finger on it…


----------



## Quirky (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The lack of your concern for the welfare of the average Canadian citizen,


Only problem is, I just give my opinion, he actually does the damage. All the dead people, inept leadership and general embarrassment that has become Canada is on his hands. But yeah, people like me are the problem.


----------



## dimsum (20 Jan 2022)

Quirky said:


> But yeah, people like me are the problem.


That's because those sentiments fuelled up the PPC and parts of the CPC base.  

Disclaimer:  I'm not saying you voted for either of those parties.  You could be NDP or Green for all I know.  

But, sentiments like those espoused by you on this forum have contributed to actual consequences.


----------



## QV (20 Jan 2022)

dimsum said:


> That's because those sentiments fuelled up the PPC and parts of the CPC base.
> 
> Disclaimer:  I'm not saying you voted for either of those parties.  You could be NDP or Green for all I know.
> 
> But, sentiments like those espoused by you on this forum have contributed to actual consequences.


Careful Quirky, having a different view of things can be hazardous. Don’t challenge the establishment!


----------



## QV (20 Jan 2022)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The lack of your concern for the welfare of the average Canadian citizen, the smugness in your posts combined with a bit of drama reminds me of someone, but I just can’t seem to put my finger on it…


Careful, you might offend the people on here who voted for this guy… some did it two or three times!


----------



## QV (21 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> Didn’t mean to intimidate you.
> 
> So any actual answers to those questions?   Just trying to see how your new fondness with government decisions that you like, matches up with your belief system.
> 
> It’s pretty fascinating to be honest.


I don’t want to leave questions unanswered, but a pause to bring down the temp a bit.

When I say “agenda” what I mean is political opportunism by power hungry people like JT and his circle who use the pandemic to push their “agenda” (new gun laws, attacks on energy industry, censorship) and the pandemic is a convenient distraction to all his corruption and scandals. I suggest they (JT and company) push forward measures that best achieve the “agenda” and not necessarily the best measures for the overall well-being of Canadian society. I suggest they ignore the science that doesn’t support the “agenda” (see also censorship/discredit of opposed scientists).  JT, IMO, is the most despicable and untrustworthy public figure of our time and I feel it would be completely within his modus operandi to do this, and there are enough senior bureaucrats that will happily move things along the way he wants it.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Jan 2022)

Myabe this thread can be locked now?


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Jan 2022)

PMedMoe said:


> Myabe this thread can be locked now?



Why ?


----------



## Haggis (21 Jan 2022)

QV said:


> When I say “agenda” what I mean is political opportunism by power hungry people like JT and his circle who use the pandemic to push their “agenda” (new gun laws, attacks on energy industry, censorship) and the pandemic is a convenient distraction to all his corruption and scandals. I suggest they (JT and company) push forward measures that best achieve the “agenda” and not necessarily the best measures for the overall well-being of Canadian society. I suggest they ignore the science that doesn’t support the “agenda” (see also censorship/discredit of opposed scientists).  JT, IMO, is the most despicable and untrustworthy public figure of our time and I feel it would be completely within his modus operandi to do this, and there are enough senior bureaucrats that will happily move things along the way he wants it.


You're just perceiving things differently.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Why ?


Because we already have pages of threads with the exact same discussions going on.  The OP has bowed out.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jan 2022)

QV said:


> I don’t want to leave questions unanswered, but a pause to bring down the temp a bit.
> 
> When I say “agenda” what I mean is political opportunism by power hungry people like JT and his circle who use the pandemic to push their “agenda” (new gun laws, attacks on energy industry, censorship) and the pandemic is a convenient distraction to all his corruption and scandals. I suggest they (JT and company) push forward measures that best achieve the “agenda” and not necessarily the best measures for the overall well-being of Canadian society. I suggest they ignore the science that doesn’t support the “agenda” (see also censorship/discredit of opposed scientists).  JT, IMO, is the most despicable and untrustworthy public figure of our time and I feel it would be completely within his modus operandi to do this, and there are enough senior bureaucrats that will happily move things along the way he wants it.


Can’t disagree at all with this.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jan 2022)

PMedMoe said:


> Because we already have pages of threads with the exact same discussions going on.  The OP has bowed out.



Yes!


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> Didn’t mean to intimidate you.
> 
> So any actual answers to those questions?   Just trying to see how your new fondness with government decisions that you like, matches up with your belief system.
> 
> It’s pretty fascinating to be honest.



Is it so difficult to understand?  I don't find it so.

Some governments I like.  Some governments I dislike.  I vote for governments I like.  I applaud them when they win.  I tolerate the governments I dislike.   Surely that is the basis of a popularly elected government?


----------



## Remius (21 Jan 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> Is it so difficult to understand?  I don't find it so.
> 
> Some governments I like.  Some governments I dislike.  I vote for governments I like.  I applaud them when they win.  I tolerate the governments I dislike.   Surely that is the basis of a popularly elected government?


That is fine.  But when we talk about the pandemic being a conspiracy of some type and a means to gain some sort of power that won’t be relinquished and some pan nation plan to help Trudeau or whoever deflect from whatever then you start getting into the realm of crazy talk.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2022)

Remius said:


> That is fine.  But when we talk about the pandemic being a conspiracy of some type and a means to gain some sort of power that won’t be relinquished and some pan nation plan to help Trudeau or whoever deflect from whatever then you start getting into the realm of crazy talk.



And we're at liberty to ignore the stuff we choose to ignore.


----------



## coolintheshade (3 Feb 2022)

Canadian military cuts dozens of unvaccinated troops, puts hundreds more on notice​





						Canadian military cuts dozens of unvaccinated troops, puts hundreds more on notice
					

OTTAWA — The Canadian Armed Forces has kicked out dozens of service members who refused to bare their arms and get vaccinated, while release proceedings have…




					ottawacitizen.com


----------



## btrudy (4 Feb 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> And we're at liberty to ignore the stuff we choose to ignore.


Or we're at liberty to rightfully judge the people who spout such nonsense, and take not only their views on COVID with a giant grain of salt, but pretty much everything else they say too, given that they clearly lack critical thinking skills.


----------



## OceanBonfire (4 Feb 2022)

> “It’s a tight window: two days to get tested and another two to get the drug,” he says. “If you are sitting at home and think covid is a hoax, will you get tested quick enough? Because by the time you’re in the hospital, your disease is being driven by the body’s inflammation response and by then the antivirals don’t have a big role.”
> 
> In a statement, the World Health Organization said it believes “prevention is better than cure” and that “these drugs will not be alternatives to vaccines.” The organization, based in Geneva, has yet to make a formal recommendation in favor of Paxlovid and says it wants to track whether side effects emerge.











						How Pfizer made an effective anti-covid pill
					

A covid pill could cut serious illnesses and help prevent the next pandemic. But it's expensive and in short supply.




					www.technologyreview.com


----------



## AKa (11 Feb 2022)

Military investigating after officer appears in anti-vaccine video
					

The Canadian Armed Forces says it is investigating after one of its officers appeared in a video speaking out against vaccine mandates and calling for other military members to stand up against government-imposed pandemic restrictions. Yet while officials say Armed Forces members who discredit...




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Pass the popcorn.


----------



## dimsum (11 Feb 2022)

AKa said:


> Military investigating after officer appears in anti-vaccine video
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces says it is investigating after one of its officers appeared in a video speaking out against vaccine mandates and calling for other military members to stand up against government-imposed pandemic restrictions. Yet while officials say Armed Forces members who discredit...
> ...


Discussed in this thread already:









						CDN/US Covid-related political discussion
					

Any body wanna watch a major commit career suicide? Watch the above.




					army.ca


----------



## AKa (11 Feb 2022)

dimsum said:


> Discussed in this thread already:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol.  I wasn't following that COVID thread.  Just the main two


----------



## OceanBonfire (25 Feb 2022)

New DM/CDS Directive Released: Operating and Reconstituting in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment:






						New DM/CDS Directive Released: Operating and Reconstituting in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment - Canada.ca
					

The DM and CDS have released the Directive on DND/CAF Operating and Reconstituting in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment.




					www.canada.ca
				









						Joint DM/CDS Message: CDS/DM Directive on DND/CAF Operating and Reconstituting in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment - Canada.ca
					

We have released the new CDS/DM Directive on DND/CAF Operating and Reconstituting in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment which moves away from a mindset focused exclusively on avoidance to one more tailored towards risk mitigation.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Feb 2022)

Remius said:


> That is fine.  But when we talk about the pandemic being a conspiracy of some type and a means to gain some sort of power that won’t be relinquished and some pan nation plan to help Trudeau or whoever deflect from whatever then you start getting into the realm of crazy talk.


If you don't think that governments and various organizations won't take advantage of a crisis, you have been snoozing behind the wheel. Authoritarianism rarely comes straight in your face, they chip away at your freedoms little by little. It's not one big conspiracy plan, it's a whole lot of little ones sometimes at odds with each other, most fail thanks to human nature, but the trend on civil liberties is shifting away from freedoms currently.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Mar 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Looks like the US Navy is playing a NOPE card.
> 
> Federal hearing begins in Navy SEALs challenge to Defense Department’s vaccine mandate
> 
> ...



It's been a while since this issue popped up here.  Following preliminary injunctions against the US Navy issued by a federal judge in Texas and upheld by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) the Supreme Court partially weighed in.









						Supreme Court gives Biden win for now in Navy vaccine case
					

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Navy may consider sailors’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions while a lawsuit on the military's vaccination mandate plays out in court.




					www.militarytimes.com
				





> Supreme Court gives Biden win for now in Navy vaccine case​The Supreme Court is giving the Navy a freer hand determining what job assignments it gives to 35 sailors who sued after refusing on religious grounds to comply with an order to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
> 
> The high court in a brief order Friday sided with the Biden administration and said that while the lawsuit plays out, the Navy may consider the sailors’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions. The group that sued includes mostly Navy SEALs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Mar 2022)

Remius said:


> That is fine.  But when we talk about the pandemic being a conspiracy of some type and a means to gain some sort of power that won’t be relinquished and some pan nation plan to help Trudeau or whoever deflect from whatever then you start getting into the realm of crazy talk.


The pandemic was an "event" which the governments have been using to their advantage, the thing about all governments is that they will always trend to more authoritarianism. Elections are organized revolutions to prevent actual revolutions. If people see the elections work, then they accept the result, but when a number of people feel disenfranchised, then real revolts happen. So yes this government used the pandemic to push control on the people, because that is the nature of governments. the only argument is how much and how successful they were/are.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Mar 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The pandemic was an "event" which the governments have been using to their advantage, the thing about all governments is that they will always trend to more authoritarianism. Elections are organized revolutions to prevent actual revolutions. If people see the elections work, then they accept the result, but when a number of people feel disenfranchised, then real revolts happen. So yes this government used the pandemic to push control on the people, because that is the nature of governments. the only argument is how much and how successful they were/are.


Having worked in the government for almost 20 years now, with some time working with OGDs, I find it really hard to believe the GoC is organized enough to deliberately take advantage of the pandemic to do some Machivelian stuff behind closed doors. The people that think they are Maciveli are usually transparent assholes who are far less clever then they think, and get impeded from doing anything real by the decentralized, committee type nature of any big decision.

The fact that we got vaccines, the vaccines got distributed etc is a testament to the dedication of individuals working within the system. The various pandemic restrictions are slowly starting to get walked back.

Does anyone have real, concrete examples of lasting changes that will linger after the pandemic, where the GoC brought in new controls during the pandemic? It takes a long time to do things like even draft legislation, let alone get it passed and implemented, so the items that went through in the last year or so have been underway for years before the pandemic started.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Mar 2022)

Well, wait and see whether anyone proposes that we keep wearing masks anywhere, such as public transit.  That would be a lingering change.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Mar 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Well, wait and see whether anyone proposes that we keep wearing masks anywhere, such as public transit.  That would be a lingering change.


OMG!!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Well, wait and see whether anyone proposes that we keep wearing masks anywhere, such as public transit.  That would be a lingering change.


There's a bunch of that going on now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Mar 2022)

> OMG!!!



I agree it's no big deal.  But status quo ante is the target.


----------



## GK .Dundas (27 Mar 2022)

I work in a hospital and  know of a least a dozen times that I know of where I exposed to Covid positive patients. I am comfortable with.those encounters. What bothers me is is my daily ride back and forth to work on the bus. 
You bet I am going to wear a m 95 or a medical grade mask. 
Hell given the fact that some of the people who ride this bus even prior to the pandemic were selfpropelled biohazards.
I'd have no real problem wearing a NBC noddy suit.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Well, wait and see whether anyone proposes that we keep wearing masks anywhere, such as public transit.  That would be a lingering change.


Do you still get worked up about seatbelt mandates and mandates against smoking in restaurants?


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Mar 2022)

McG said:


> Do you still get worked up about seatbelt mandates and mandates against smoking in restaurants?


I'll take false equivalencies for 500, Alex.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> I work in a hospital and  know of a least a dozen times that I know of where I exposed to Covid positive patients. I am comfortable with.those encounters. What bothers me is is my daily ride back and forth to work on the bus.
> You bet I am going to wear a m 95 or a medical grade mask.
> Hell given the fact that some of the people who ride this bus even prior to the pandemic were selfpropelled biohazards.
> I'd have no real problem wearing a NBC noddy suit.



Dude.... in case no one tells you this enough: thank you.

That is all...


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Mar 2022)

I had two rapid tests within the last two days both negative. Those are the only two tests I've had for Covid


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> I'll take false equivalencies for 500, Alex.


Is it a false equivalency? If all three things can measurably be found to save lives, how are they not equivalent? We don’t know how COVID is going to evolve, and the possibilities are more than binary. It is absolutely nonsense to declare now that the future will be either freedom & no masks or over-reach & masks.


----------



## GK .Dundas (27 Mar 2022)

I am working at the Psych centre here at HSC in Winnipeg. I'm not doing much just providing security for the screening station. Nothing special the real heroes are nurses the Psych workers , social.workers etc.
It has been a privilege to work here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2022)

> Do you still get worked up about seatbelt mandates and mandates against smoking in restaurants?



No.  Those are entirely different levels of hazards, more or less permanent.

People who wish to wear masks are welcome to do so.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> No.  Those are entirely different levels of hazards, more or less permanent.
> 
> People who wish to wear masks are welcome to do so.


I agree Brad. I'm not going to concern myself, with those that wish to keep wearing their masks. It's their choice. 
The same as I'm free, not to wear one, without being criticized for it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Mar 2022)

So is anyone aware of any actual changes?

Right now see it in stores here in Ottawa that a lot of people are voluntarily wearing masks when things are busy, which makes sense to me. I haven't seen anything about making required on public transit anywhere, but used to occasionally see it pre-pandemic during cold and flu season anyway, so might just be more common now for people to do it on their own.

Personally will play it by ear and roll with whatever I'm comfortable with, but after years of getting colds that turned into sinus infections, trying to minimize that with a mask while packed into a bus like sardines makes sense to me. Not going back to the office full time makes even more sense too, and no one alive misses their trips on OC Transpo or the STO in Gatineau (putting the Estie back in your commute since 1934).


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Mar 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> So is anyone aware of any actual changes?
> 
> Right now see it in stores here in Ottawa that a lot of people are voluntarily wearing masks when things are busy, which makes sense to me. I haven't seen anything about making required on public transit anywhere, but used to occasionally see it pre-pandemic during cold and flu season anyway, so might just be more common now for people to do it on their own.
> 
> Personally will play it by ear and roll with whatever I'm comfortable with, but after years of getting colds that turned into sinus infections, trying to minimize that with a mask while packed into a bus like sardines makes sense to me. Not going back to the office full time makes even more sense too, and no one alive misses their trips on OC Transpo or the STO in Gatineau (putting the Estie back in your commute since 1934).


From direct observation, more of a mix downtown and in the close suburbs (Barrhaven, Kanata, Nepean, Hunt Club) vs less masking in the surrounding rural  areas (Metcalfe, Winchester and Kemptville).  Probably a similar patter in other Urban/Suburban/Rural areas.


----------



## dimsum (28 Mar 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> So is anyone aware of any actual changes?


Not wearing a mask while in some restaurants while standing up felt weird for about 4 mins.  The staff at some of them are unmasked as well.


----------



## Remius (28 Mar 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> So is anyone aware of any actual changes?
> 
> Right now see it in stores here in Ottawa that a lot of people are voluntarily wearing masks when things are busy, which makes sense to me. I haven't seen anything about making required on public transit anywhere, but used to occasionally see it pre-pandemic during cold and flu season anyway, so might just be more common now for people to do it on their own.
> 
> Personally will play it by ear and roll with whatever I'm comfortable with, but after years of getting colds that turned into sinus infections, trying to minimize that with a mask while packed into a bus like sardines makes sense to me. Not going back to the office full time makes even more sense too, and no one alive misses their trips on OC Transpo or the STO in Gatineau (putting the Estie back in your commute since 1934).


I’ve been judging the crowd.  I went into a drug store and everyone was wearing a mask. So I put one on.  

I went to a gaming store.  All masks still.

Had breakfast at a restaurant.  Mixed.  But I put one on in the waiting area. 

Quick in and out at the gas station.  I didn’t wear a mask. 

Situations will vary for me.  On the bus i’d be wearing a mask.


----------



## Weinie (28 Mar 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> So is anyone aware of any actual changes?
> 
> Right now see it in stores here in Ottawa that a lot of people are voluntarily wearing masks when things are busy, which makes sense to me. *I haven't seen anything about making required on public transit anywhere,* but used to occasionally see it pre-pandemic during cold and flu season anyway, so might just be more common now for people to do it on their own.
> 
> Personally will play it by ear and roll with whatever I'm comfortable with, but after years of getting colds that turned into sinus infections, trying to minimize that with a mask while packed into a bus like sardines makes sense to me. Not going back to the office full time makes even more sense too, and no one alive misses their trips on OC Transpo or the STO in Gatineau (putting the Estie back in your commute since 1934).


My son rode OC Transpo yesterday. Apparently masks are still required.


Keeping you safer | OC Transpo


----------



## FSTO (28 Mar 2022)

Here in Regina, it's mainly senior citizens wearing masks. I'm agnostic about it and will wear it if warranted.

I am getting annoyed at the righteous be they maskers or anti-maskers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Mar 2022)

FSTO said:


> I am getting annoyed at the righteous be they maskers or anti-maskers.



Outrage Addiction


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Mar 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Having worked in the government for almost 20 years now, with some time working with OGDs, I find it really hard to believe the GoC is organized enough to deliberately take advantage of the pandemic to do some Machivelian stuff behind closed doors. The people that think they are Maciveli are usually transparent assholes who are far less clever then they think, and get impeded from doing anything real by the decentralized, committee type nature of any big decision.
> 
> The fact that we got vaccines, the vaccines got distributed etc is a testament to the dedication of individuals working within the system. The various pandemic restrictions are slowly starting to get walked back.
> 
> Does anyone have real, concrete examples of lasting changes that will linger after the pandemic, where the GoC brought in new controls during the pandemic? It takes a long time to do things like even draft legislation, let alone get it passed and implemented, so the items that went through in the last year or so have been underway for years before the pandemic started.


I worked in Government as well, I agree that the disorganisation saves us from most nefarious activities. I have seen the attitude in the senior ranks of the Public Service and some political figures, that rules are for other people. A small example is the use of codewords for people to thwart ATIP requests. Governments need to be kept on a short lease. 
Examples, lets take a look at the use of the Emergencies Act, the gun legislation, Hate speech legislation, carbon taxes, a host of other things that are all going to restrain peoples choices and activities in the future. The general attitude is to have more and more control over our day to day life.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Mar 2022)

Weinie said:


> My son rode OC Transpo yesterday. Apparently masks are still required.
> 
> 
> Keeping you safer | OC Transpo


Which is still in line with ON provincial health requirements; they got rid of them for a lot of spaces, but kept it in place for now on public transit, health facilities etc. That seems like a reasonable precaution as we slowly open things back up.

Face coverings and face masks


----------



## pef459 (28 Mar 2022)

When you find yourself in the middle of a minefield or in a Gazillion laws of the Land, proceed with caution.
And be aware, the guys who make booby traps are very very devious.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Mar 2022)

McG said:


> Is it a false equivalency? If all three things can measurably be found to save lives, how are they not equivalent? We don’t know how COVID is going to evolve, and the possibilities are more than binary. It is absolutely nonsense to declare now that the future will be either freedom & no masks or over-reach & masks.


How many waves that are bigger than the one before while we had mask mandates do you need to show their effect is pretty piss poor. If we're not allowed to compare influenza as a seasonal illness to COVID, seatbelts to mask mandates is absolutely ridiculous. Remember where the burden of proof (not correlated data) lies with the individual wanting the mandate, not the people wanting normal.

Wear a damn bubble suit if you want, I could care less. I'm not scared of a cold, and can rationally see that anything other than a KN95 or N95 has marginal protection against Omicron (and whatever our next seasonal variant in Fall 2022 will be). Your fear should not equal a blanket mandate.


----------



## McG (29 Mar 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> How many waves that are bigger than the one before while we had mask mandates do you need to show their effect is pretty piss poor.


So, you believe that masks are causing successive waves to be larger, or what is your point? Maybe you think in binary - the masks did not 100% stop COVID therefore they must be 0% effective? Or maybe it’s a sort of survivor bias - you can’t see the numbers that did not die because of masks therefore it must be zero? 



PuckChaser said:


> If we're not allowed to compare influenza as a seasonal illness to COVID,


You can make a comparison, but you can’t honestly say they are the same. As compared to influenza, the waves of COVID kill more people, put greater strain on healthcare systems, and come more frequently. There is no “long influenza” nor a measurable reduction of brain size that can be found after a case of the flu.



PuckChaser said:


> [comparing] seatbelts to mask mandates is absolutely ridiculous.


There are repeatable studies done on both to show they reduce the harms that are intended to protect against. Similarly, the introduction of each was met by gnashing of teeth and whining from special fragile snowflakes who declared themselves manly men, too brave for such horrible inconveniences. I’ll give you one thing though, seatbelts generally don’t protect other people’s safety while masking does measurably protect others. I suppose the argument could be made that rallying against seatbelts is less selfish.



PuckChaser said:


> Wear a damn bubble suit if you want, I could care less. I'm not scared of a cold, and can rationally see that anything other than a KN95 or N95 has marginal protection against Omicron (and whatever our next seasonal variant in Fall 2022 will be). Your fear should not equal a blanket mandate


Yeah, see above about fragile and selfish snowflakes self identifying as tough guys.



PuckChaser said:


> Remember where the burden of proof (not correlated data) lies with the individual wanting the mandate, not the people wanting normal.


There are lots of studies that have proven masks reduce transmission and linked mask wearing to reduced virus severity. Many of these studies have even been posted on this site. Cringing about burden of proof is only legitimate when you are not ignoring the proof that challenges your desired conclusion. I’ve seen opinion pieces against public health measures that cite rising suicide rates, but when I have checked stats they show rates have been down through the pandemic. I’ve seen arguments that public health measures are harmful to mental health in general and these point to an uptick in calls to mental health lines but these arguments only show correlation. Personally, I think having friend or family in hospital for COVID would tend to harm mental health in general, but the correlation  arguments link the uptick to public health measures and most strongly to measures that close businesses and schools … masks are almost an afterthought opposed on anecdote.

So we have strong evidence that masks reduce COVID, and an argument that “lock-downs” may harm mental health. Masks in a worst case can delay “lock-downs” and accelerate their end while preventing them all together in a best case. If you are pro mental health or anti lockdown, are then masks seem like an easy win.

Anyway, going all the way back to my initial point: COVID is alive and evolving to maximize its spread. It does not care that it has been around for two years or three years or four years, and it does not care that people are tired of health protection measures (though it will exploit that).  It may become more or less transmissible, and it may become more or less lethal. But to stand-up now and declare that future use of masks will be proof of an authoritarian Canadian government?  That remains asinine.


----------



## pef459 (10 Apr 2022)

The PM deceived Canadians with "vaccines" to get us GMO'd.  I'd say the likely future scenario will be, get GMO'd or die.
For real!


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Apr 2022)

Remius said:


> I’ve been judging the crowd.  I went into a drug store and everyone was wearing a mask. So I put one on.
> 
> I went to a gaming store.  All masks still.
> 
> ...



Kind of like applying camouflage to your face but not your ears neck and hands😳


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Kind of like applying camouflage to your face but not your ears neck and hands😳


More like wearing cam when needed or as required as opposed to wearing it all the time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Apr 2022)

Remius said:


> More like wearing cam when needed or as required as opposed to wearing it all the time.


Touche!

Those situations seem very subjective though. No mask in a gas station, masks in a gaming store, mask in a waiting area at a restaurant but then taking it off to eat. It's like the pull-out method of birth control.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Apr 2022)

Or: "You don't need to wear masks, don't panic buy all the N95" (Because we have neglected to maintain our stocks and now the Public Health System needs to panic buy first) How to build confidence in the public health officials...not! The hand washing, masks and social distancing were likely as effective as the various vaccines and at much less costs or risks.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2022)

Brace yourselves, the unclean are about to be returned to duty. Draft policy has been leaked to the media, and outlines what we all knew: there's going to be massive administrative effort trying to sort out all the cases of the folks released, pending release or are in the AR process.

Canadian military poised to end vaccine mandate


----------



## brihard (23 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Brace yourselves, the unclean are about to be returned to duty. Draft policy has been leaked to the media, and outlines what we all knew: there's going to be massive administrative effort trying to sort out all the cases of the folks released, pending release or are in the AR process.
> 
> Canadian military poised to end vaccine mandate


I’ll be curious to see how much drafts that were leaked to the media match what ultimately receives CDS approval.

There’s gonna be a whole different level of “finding out” for some who may want back in, but who compromised their security clearances and reliability status through some of the individuals or groups they might have associated with in the protest movement on this.

This will indeed be a mess. Though I continue to have zero sympathy for those who chose to render themselves non-deployable and became administrative burdens over this.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Brace yourselves, the unclean are about to be returned to duty. Draft policy has been leaked to the media, and outlines what we all knew: there's going to be massive administrative effort trying to sort out all the cases of the folks released, pending release or are in the AR process.
> 
> Canadian military poised to end vaccine mandate


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> I’ll be curious to see how much drafts that were leaked to the media match what ultimately receives CDS approval.
> 
> There’s gonna be a whole different level of “finding out” for some who may want back in, but who compromised their security clearances and reliability status through some of the individuals or groups they might have associated with in the protest movement on this.
> 
> This will indeed be a mess. Though I continue to have zero sympathy for those who chose to render themselves non-deployable and became administrative burdens over this.


People deployed without getting vaccinated.  I deployed with a bunch of them.  They just got threatened a lot and told they would be flown home if they didn't get the shot(s).  

"Ok fly me home then"...... 

They stayed the entire time 🤣. 

Then there were others who got the shot and just refused to do the attestation.  That was even more funny because it just made a point of how dumb the entire attestation procedure was.


----------



## brihard (23 Jul 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> People deployed without getting vaccinated.  I deployed with a bunch of them.  They just got threatened a lot and told they would be flown home if they didn't get the shot(s).
> 
> "Ok fly me home then"......
> 
> ...


Interesting. Were they stuck on ship during port visits? I could see navy having different deployment requirements than army or Air Force given that the latter two will be on the soil of another sovereign state with that state’s consent.

It doesn’t change my opinion regarding the choices individuals made. Cleaner approach for the organization would simply have been to make it part of the standard shots all CAF members are required to have, under the same policy structure.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Interesting. Were they stuck on ship during port visits? I could see navy having different deployment requirements than army or Air Force given that the latter two will be on the soil of another sovereign state with that state’s consent.
> 
> It doesn’t change my opinion regarding the choices individuals made. Cleaner approach for the organization would simply have been to make it part of the standard shots all CAF members are required to have, under the same policy structure.


Nope, they were also threatened with that.  All the threats ended up being just that.... threats.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jul 2022)

My body my choice! Except for a somewhat less than effective vaccine, then it's shut up, roll up your sleeve, and get in line.


----------



## brihard (23 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> My body my choice! Except for a somewhat less than effective vaccine, then it's shut up, roll up your sleeve, and get in line.


Meh. I had to get a bunch for Afghanistan, so that take doesn’t impress me. And it absolutely was effective, as seen in ICU numbers and the relative proportion of who was ending up there. Obviously not 100%, and obviously this virus has had the ability to escape immunity to some considerable degree. None of which invalidates the legitimacy of the policy requirements at the time they were made and enforced. Nobody forced any troops to take a vaccine, it was simply a choice they had to make that would have employability consequences.

Anyway, this has been hashed out here many times over. Troops chose the behaviour, they chose the consequences, and they were very informed as to what that would be. I recall at least that when I was in, your own preferences and wants did not take precedence over the operational requirements of the service. I didn’t think I got out long enough ago for that to have changed.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Cleaner approach for the organization would simply have been to make it part of the standard shots all CAF members are required to have, under the same policy structure.


Which is the dumpster fire the CAF created. They had a completely legal mechanism under QR&O 15.01 or changing the baseline vaccination requirement. But that wasn't politically expedient. Instead, they ordered everyone to give up their private medical information by attesting to vaccination status and in traditional military fashion threaten people with things that were not possible (forced LWOP anyone?).

The CDS screwed this one up big time and now he's got to pick up the pieces.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> My body my choice! Except for a somewhat less than effective vaccine, then it's shut up, roll up your sleeve, and get in line.


Tripled vaxxed and had COVID twice!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jul 2022)

....


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2022)

That's the best part about partisan political memes, they're almost always completely wrong and misleading.

COVID-19 vaccine does not:

1. Outside a 10-12 week window protect anyone from getting COVID
2. Reduce your ability to pass on the virus to others
3. If you're 0-50 with no COVID risk factors meaningfully reduce your chance of being hospitalized


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> Meh. I had to get a bunch for Afghanistan, so that take doesn’t impress me. And it absolutely was effective, as seen in ICU numbers and the relative proportion of who was ending up there. Obviously not 100%, and obviously this virus has had the ability to escape immunity to some considerable degree. None of which invalidates the legitimacy of the policy requirements at the time they were made and enforced. Nobody forced any troops to take a vaccine, it was simply a choice they had to make that would have employability consequences.
> 
> Anyway, this has been hashed out here many times over. Troops chose the behaviour, they chose the consequences, and they were very informed as to what that would be. I recall at least that when I was in, your own preferences and wants did not take precedence over the operational requirements of the service. I didn’t think I got out long enough ago for that to have changed.


Oh no, my friend! That was the old army. Now it's all self actualization and being who you want to be, and some people don't want the shot. And, full disclosure, I've had a shitload of them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> Oh no, my friend! That was the old army. Now it's all self actualization and being who you want to be, and some people don't want the shot. And, full disclosure, I've had a shitload of them.


Oh god, he's letting the Mefloquine do the talking again!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jul 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> That's the best part about partisan political memes, they're almost always completely wrong and misleading.
> 
> COVID-19 vaccine does not:
> 
> ...


That has nothing to do at all with the meme....


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That has nothing to do at all with the meme....


Guess you've missed the "Get the vaccine to help everyone else" media line for the last 18 months...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jul 2022)

"Vaccine"??   Where does it say that??


----------



## Kilted (23 Jul 2022)

Has any trustworthy news source reported on this?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2022)

Kilted said:


> Has any trustworthy news source reported on this?


----------



## OceanBonfire (29 Sep 2022)

> On top of the 299 military members told to leave the forces, an additional 108 Regular Forces members requested to leave voluntarily as of Sept. 13, citing the mandatory vaccination policy as their prime reason for releasing. The departures represent about 0.56 per cent of the roughly 71,500 currently serving Canadian Armed Forces members.











						Fewer than 300 military members kicked out for failing to get COVID-19 vaccine
					

Nearly a year after a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy was implemented for the Canadian Armed Forces, 299 members have been kicked out of the military because they refused to get vaccinated.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Sep 2022)

In unrelated note, tin foil usage rates has coincidentally gone down in the messes.


----------



## Quirky (29 Sep 2022)

71,500 members, ok.


----------



## mariomike (29 Sep 2022)

> On top of the 299 military members told to leave the forces, an additional 108 Regular Forces members requested to leave voluntarily as of Sept. 13, citing the mandatory vaccination policy as their prime reason for releasing. The departures represent about 0.56 per cent of the roughly 71,500 currently serving Canadian Armed Forces members.



Some discussion of releasing members with remaining obligatory service.


Blackadder1916 said:


> Did any of those released have a remaining period of obligatory service?  Could possibly be a "novel" (pun intended) approach to getting out early without fully paying back expensive education or training.  Do any guidelines for this policy include mention of those on a term of obligatory service?


----------



## QV (29 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> In unrelated note, tin foil usage rates has coincidentally gone down in the messes.


You’re equating doing what you’re told with liking it. Guarantee tons of people got the shots because they had to, not because they wanted to.


----------



## Remius (29 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> You’re equating doing what you’re told with liking it. Guarantee tons of people got the shots because they had to, not because they wanted to.


I can attest to a few of those at my unit. 

But I can also say that the ones we lost in most cases did us a favour by leaving.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Sep 2022)

It's complicated... that sums us up nicely 

Poilievre demands end to military vaccine mandate, but some say it's more complex​
OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is demanding an end to the vaccine mandate for military members, but his health critic suggested the situation might need a more nuanced approach.

Last week, Poilievre called for an end to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, saying it was “obviously unscientific and contradictory” to keep that rule in place while ending the requirement for those crossing the border into Canada.

On Tuesday night, Poilievre circulated a video on Twitter of those comments from question period in the House of Commons on Sept. 23 and repeated his call for the rules to be changed.

“Many of the men and women who want to fight to defend our freedoms aren’t even free themselves to serve their country,” he added. “End all the COVID vaccine mandates, now.”

As of Saturday, the vaccine mandate for those in the Canadian military will be the last one left at the federal level. While Poilievre in his tweet pinned the responsibility for lifting them on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Department of National Defence says the choice is up to defence chief Gen. Wayne Eyre.









						Poilievre demands end to military vaccine mandate, but some say it's more complex
					

OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is demanding an end to the vaccine mandate for military members, but his health critic suggested the situation…




					nationalpost.com


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> I can attest to a few of those at my unit.
> 
> But I can also say that the ones we lost in most cases did us a favour by leaving.


Some  "less than stellar"  performers and guardhouse lawyers no doubt yelling and screaming "they can't do that".


----------



## QV (29 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> I can attest to a few of those at my unit.
> 
> But I can also say that the ones we lost in most cases did us a favour by leaving.



That's because doing what you're told even if you don't like it is a large part about being military. Generally speaking, nobody in the military wants people around that don't do what they're told. Military people are accustomed to doing what they're told even when they don't agree. So the extreme % of uptake in the CAF, or anywhere livelihoods were threatened, is not a good metric for voluntary compliance. 

Booster uptake in the general population gives a good idea about how the average person feels about it. As does uptake in annual flu shots.


----------



## Quirky (29 Sep 2022)

Remius said:


> But I can also say that the ones we lost in most cases did us a favour by leaving.



Too bad it's not that easy to kick out the underperforming oxygen thieves, which are the real problem, vaccinated or not.


----------



## Remius (29 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> Too bad it's not that easy to kick out the underperforming oxygen thieves, which are the real problem, vaccinated or not.


I wish…


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Sep 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Some  "less than stellar"  performers and guardhouse lawyers no doubt yelling and screaming "they can't do that".


And also probably some top notch super troops who just decided that it was a shot too far.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> It's complicated... that sums us up nicely
> 
> Poilievre demands end to military vaccine mandate, but some say it's more complex​



I'm sorry but the law of inintended consequences looms large here. What happens next? No more compulsory immunization for anything? How do we function in the world where protective immunization is a requirement to cross borders?


----------



## QV (29 Sep 2022)

Sorry, but the CAF will function just fine and probably better without mandatory C19 shots that don't work very well. "How will they every manage?!"

I can't help but wonder the draconian vaccine mandate is another part of the recruiting crisis.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Sep 2022)

It's still mandatory for traveling everywhere outside CAN (and for foreigners coming into CAN); still a pretty basic universality of service requirement.

Just because they aren't 100% effective at stopping transmission, doesn't mean they don't work very well. Hospitalization rates are way down compared to pre-vaccination, and the unvaccinated are massively over-represented in hospitalizations/deaths. Incidents of severe symptoms and long term impacts from COVID also way down. Very easy to link all of those to long term effectiveness of a fighting force.

Completely subjective, but I've still yet to hear of someone leaving due to vaccination that we aren't better off without. Lots of people are still getting out for totally different reasons, but 0.4% loss from unvaccinated isn't a significant overall loss, when none of those people are deployable and have employment limitations.


----------



## QV (29 Sep 2022)

You think the the C19 vax is mandatory travelling everywhere outside Canada? You might want to look into that.

They're 0% effective in stopping transmission. Zero. They are also zero % effective in preventing a vaccinated person getting it. How many people do you know that are vaxd and still got C19, even multiple times? If the only thing they do is stop a worse outcome for a tiny margin of at-risk people, then that really is only a direct personal impact now isn't it? 

I can see you support it still... if you think it's mandatory all around the world and that it actually works very well.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> You think the the C19 vax is mandatory travelling everywhere outside Canada? You might want to look into that.


It sure is; a large number of countries still require proof of vaccination for international travelers. Canada also does for a few more days.



QV said:


> They're 0% effective in stopping transmission. Zero. They are also zero % effective in preventing a vaccinated person getting it. How many people do you know that are vaxd and still got C19, even multiple times? If the only thing they do is stop a worse outcome for a tiny margin of at-risk people, then that really is only a direct personal impact now isn't it?
> 
> I can see you support it still... if you think it's mandatory all around the world and that it actually works very well.



Not factually true. The vaccines are still partially effecting at stopping transmission, also reduces the amount of time people are contagious, and highly effective at reducing severity. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Quirky (29 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> The vaccines are still partially effecting at stopping transmission, also reduces the amount of time people are contagious, and highly effective at reducing severity. 🤷‍♂️



Assuming you continue with boosting. My last shot was in January, I doubt I have any protection left. Enough of this booster crap, I realize the gov needs to justify that Moderna factory in Quebec, but people aren't stupid enough to continue with these injections.


----------



## kev994 (29 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> Assuming you continue with boosting. My last shot was in January, I doubt I have any protection left. Enough of this booster crap, I realize the gov needs to justify that Moderna factory in Quebec, but people aren't stupid enough to continue with these injections.


I’ll take another one, and then another after 6 months. Because I’m stupid enough to believe science instead of the meme someone posted on Facebook.


----------



## QV (29 Sep 2022)

kev994 said:


> I’ll take another one, and then another after 6 months. Because I’m stupid enough to believe science instead of the meme someone posted on Facebook.


Fill your boots. Just mind your own business and leave others alone (about their status). 

In other late breaking news: scientists have discovered tinfoil is connected to lower cases of myocarditis and reduced chances of sudden adult death syndrome.


----------



## IKnowNothing (29 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Not factually true. The vaccines are still partially effecting at stopping transmission, also reduces the amount of time people are contagious, and highly effective at reducing severity. 🤷‍♂️


I'm incredibly curious about what we'd see if we were able to go back in time and apply widespread testing and wastewater sampling to the likes of the smallpox and polio vaccine rollouts.  

No vaccine has ever been a force field, we've just never tested people that didn't get seriously sick across the whole of society for weeks on end.


----------



## winds_13 (29 Sep 2022)

kev994 said:


> I’ll take another one, and then another after 6 months. Because I’m stupid enough to believe science instead of the meme someone posted on Facebook.


Will you continue to blundly get a booster every six months even if it isn't recommended? Many health professionals have been speaking out in recent months about the need for individuals to weigh risks when considering getting a booster... even one's that were part of the early campaign to fight vaccine hesitancy. In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer (Kieran Moore) stated such in a July news conference, citing as an example that young men (without comorbidities) were at higher risk of heart complications from vaccination than they were of being hospitalized from COVID.

You can do whatever you want, science isn't a religion to be "believed in".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2022)

And got shot down with his "1 in 5000" claim very quickly.  And the cherry picking of an age group....


----------



## QV (30 Sep 2022)

The point is that a person should be able to take as many boosters and vaccines as available and prescribed. And any person should also be able to opt out. Notice it’s only one side that are usually zealots and attack the other in this with the “you take the vax to protect me” rhetoric. Someone will now say “there’s crazy Antivaxxers out there”… yes, yes, but they aren’t lobbying or forcing you to lose your livelihood your choices. They just want to be left alone. Big difference.


----------



## IKnowNothing (30 Sep 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Not factually true. The vaccines are still partially effecting at stopping transmission, also reduces the amount of time people are contagious, and highly effective at reducing severity. 🤷‍♂️


In my opinion the military is one of the few remaining industries/occupations where a mandate is justifiable. 
Unit wide protection against a virus that (even if it kills and hospitalizes no one) would cut through a battlegroup in a week or two leaving a significant percentage preferring to stay home in bed and struggling to go up a flight of stairs seems like a reasonable thing to require.


----------



## Quirky (30 Sep 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> In my opinion the military is one of the few remaining industries/occupations where a mandate is justifiable.
> Unit wide protection against a virus that (even if it kills and hospitalizes no one) would cut through a battlegroup in a week or two leaving a significant percentage preferring to stay home in bed and struggling to go up a flight of stairs seems like a reasonable thing to require.



If your unit is a bunch of sick seniors.


----------



## IKnowNothing (30 Sep 2022)

Quirky said:


> If your unit is a bunch of sick seniors.


I know several fit people under 40 that got it (either prior to vaccinations being available or chose not to) that were 3-6 days of being physically useless.  Certainly not hospital worthy, but between coughing, shortness of breath, lack of energy... yeah physically useless is the best descriptor.


----------



## mariomike (30 Sep 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> In my opinion the military is one of the few remaining industries/occupations where a mandate is justifiable.



Justifiable or not is a matter of opinion.

But, other employers  have it.









						COVID-19: Vaccination Policy
					

Policy Statement The health and safety of City employees is a priority. The City of Toronto is committed to taking every reasonable precaution in the circumstances for the protection of the health and safety of workers from the hazard of COVID-19. Vaccination is a key element in the protection...




					www.toronto.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Sep 2022)

@QV All the boosters are optional and outside the vaccine mandate requirements. People without the vaccines are free to be left alone, but also not allowed into most countries without it.

Lot of previously healthy people got COVID and have been left with organ damage, even with mild symptoms. They are just starting to study it now, but expect we will lose a number of CAF folks from medical limitations following COVID.


----------



## lenaitch (30 Sep 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> I know several fit people under 40 that got it (either prior to vaccinations being available or chose not to) that were 3-6 days of being physically useless.  Certainly not hospital worthy, but between coughing, shortness of breath, lack of energy... yeah physically useless is the best descriptor.


Jeez, you just described me on a good day!

The military, like civilian emergency services and possibly other civilian critical infrastructures, has a need to protect the organization so that it can remain responsive.  The primary goal of the civilian world at large was to protect the integrity of the healthcare system.  Trying to keep everybody absolutely healthy and virus free, even if it was medically possible, which it seems is not, so far, is unrealistic.  It is a virus with symptoms that seem to range from essentially none all the way to dead.


----------



## IKnowNothing (30 Sep 2022)

mariomike said:


> Justifiable or not is a matter of opinion.
> 
> But, other employers  have it.
> 
> ...


Snark: Check the first three words of the post 

Non Snark: It's a tough one.  There are three basic avenues to justify mandates

Societal Protection- what the provinces did.  Reducing the exposure of people that chose to leave themselves at higher risk to reduce the burden on the hospital system.  Justified as a temporary measure during an active pandemic with the healthcare system on the brink, but for no longer than absolutely necessary

Individual Protection- Organizations have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect their employees from known preventable harms.  More easily justified in an active pandemic, but still (in my opinion ) various organizations overstepped.  High traffic public facing roles? Healthcare? Congested workspaces with a high volume of coworkers? Sure.  You're being negligent if you don't mandate.  But people working from home? Outside? In well ventilated offices with little to no outside contact?  I don't think that's a justifiable health and safety measure.

Organizational Protection- what CAF is currently doing.  Protecting their interests by mitigating the risk of preventable downtime.  With the worst (hopefully) behind us, I don't think a factory's profits pass the Oakes test, but national security and healthcare do.


----------



## mariomike (30 Sep 2022)

lenaitch said:


> The military, like civilian emergency services and possibly other civilian critical infrastructures, has a need to protect the organization so that it can remain responsive.



We had to be vaccinated for Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Pertussis, proof of immunity to Varicella TDP, MMR ( Measles, Mumps, Rubella ).

Proof of seasonal Influenza vaccination was also required.


----------



## winds_13 (30 Sep 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And got shot down with his "1 in 5000" claim very quickly.  And the cherry picking of an age group....


Well, there are recent studies showing even higher incidence rates of severe adverse events following vaccination with MRNA vaccines. For example, Norway has reported serious adverse reactions at a rate of "approximately 1 in 1000 after two doses of BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA product that result in hospitalisation or are life changing."

"Cherry picking of an age group"... you do realize that risks of both COVID and vaccination change drastically between age groups, right? Why should we only consider population-level risks? Can you actually quantify what the risk of hospitalization is for someone under 40, and by how much vaccination may have reduced that risk? What the difference in risk is for contracting and spreading the  virus to others?... then use those number to justify denying them their employment and charter rights?

Consider the following 2-part article published in The Journal of Insulin Resistance, as it examines recent risk figures (and provides links to source data, obviously)... I guess they're just Fox News in disguise though, right? 






						Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine - Part 1 | Malhotra | Journal of Insulin Resistance
					

The Journal of Insulin Resistance is a peer-reviewed, clinically oriented journal covering advances in disorders of insulin resistance. Articles focus on clinical care and advancing therapy for patients with insulin resistance-related disorders. Insulin resistance includes pathophysiology...




					insulinresistance.org


----------



## childs56 (30 Sep 2022)

I was double vaccinated, Work required it. Plus like many former Military I had so many vaccines shot into my arm what was one more. Well the second shot dropped me on by butt for 24hrs. I was out, could not function besides sleep for 12hrs. for a year afterwards I had regular headaches, shortness of breath, tiredness. The Drs did not care to look into these signs and symptoms. Denying it had anything to do with the vaccines. (sounds familiar).  
Fast forward a few months later we are coming out of Covid yaaa. I caught covid, people laughed and were like your kidding. 
During Covid I worked on units where the majority if not all of the people were infected. Never caught it until the end when I was not wkaing near people much. Mask did not protect me, the vaccine did not protect me.  A few people said if you did not have your vaccines then your symptoms would have been much much worse. I had to laugh. 
I literally had "close" contact for less then a minute with a person who was deemed safe after his isolation period. I was masked up, gowned up, glasses the whole dress. Washed hands before, during and after, changed masks etc as per instructions. Three of us in the building caught covid on the same few days. none of us were in contact with each other. Makes no sense. 

But you know I have those other vaccines and although I do not willingly go into measles/ mumps infected rooms, or stab myself on purpose with tetanus filled nails, rabid animals layers. I do not fear catching those things to which I have been vaccinated for. why because they work. 

This covid vaccine even the manufacture stated it was not as effective as other vaccines were against other diseases etc. or even different variants of covid.  
Sorry you can think the vaccine protected you, and others. Right now we are seeing the negatives of the vaccines, heart problems, breathing problems, cognitive problems.  Israel was suing Pzier due the vaccine not being effective like promised. A deal was made for some undisclosed compensation and things disappeared. 
I watched some of the most vulnerable people in society with and with out the vaccines catch covid over the two years of panic. Their outcomes beat the statistics. We should of had mass deaths in the groups I work with. We did not see that.  
I know there were lots of deaths in certain demographics, but how many of those were directly related to and or caused by other factors, known or not known? That is the real question, many people were labeled as death from Covid when inf act they dies of other reasons.  That is listed in multiple reports across the country.


----------



## Quirky (1 Oct 2022)

Stop calling it a vaccine because it isn’t.


----------



## Kilted (1 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> You think the the C19 vax is mandatory travelling everywhere outside Canada? You might want to look into that.
> 
> They're 0% effective in stopping transmission. Zero. They are also zero % effective in preventing a vaccinated person getting it. How many people do you know that are vaxd and still got C19, even multiple times? If the only thing they do is stop a worse outcome for a tiny margin of at-risk people, then that really is only a direct personal impact now isn't it?
> 
> I can see you support it still... if you think it's mandatory all around the world and that it actually works very well.


This is the type of thing on Facebook that I would report as false information.


----------



## QV (1 Oct 2022)

For the record, when I get trolling emojis from Oceanbonfire, kev994, or kilted, it feels like I’ve said something right.


----------



## CBH99 (1 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Stop calling it a vaccine because it isn’t.


Okay, I’ll bite as I’m genuinely curious.  What is it then?


----------



## dimsum (1 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> They're 0% effective in stopping transmission. Zero. They are also zero % effective in preventing a vaccinated person getting it. How many people do you know that are vaxd and still got C19, even multiple times? If the only thing they do is stop a worse outcome for a tiny margin of at-risk people, then that really is only a direct personal impact now isn't it?


I'll need sources on that.  And not from Breitbart.

If a vaccinated person still got Covid, but the symptoms were far less significant (minor cold-like symptoms, rather than bedridden for a few days or worse) than if they weren't vaccinated, then is it still a bad thing?  Or is it a benefit?  

Because that happened to people I know who would not be considered at-risk, including myself.


----------



## mariomike (1 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'll need sources on that.



"Please Sir, may I have a Source?"


----------



## Quirky (1 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> If a vaccinated person still got Covid, but the symptoms were far less significant (minor cold-like symptoms, rather than bedridden for a few days or worse) than if they weren't vaccinated, then is it still a bad thing?



You are assuming the "vaccine" made a difference at all vs. what the person might experience unvaccinated. People can claim that the "vaccine" helped stave off even worse symptoms, but there is no way to know for sure how you would've felt otherwise.



CBH99 said:


> Okay, I’ll bite as I’m genuinely curious. What is it then?



Vaccine is supposed to prevent you getting infected from the disease in the first place. These C19 vaccines don't prevent infection, don't prevent symptoms and don't prevent spread. You still get infected, still get sick and you can still spread the virus. Great vaccines!


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2022)

How much time have you spent studying vaccination theory, epidemiology, public health, or anything else?

Exactly.


----------



## QV (1 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> How much time have you spent studying vaccination theory, epidemiology, public health, or anything else?
> 
> Exactly.


Did you know people in those fields have varying expert opinions on all this? Only one side gets cancelled. That ok with you?


----------



## dimsum (1 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> You are assuming the "vaccine" made a difference at all vs. what the person might experience unvaccinated. People can claim that the "vaccine" helped stave off even worse symptoms, but there is no way to know for sure how you would've felt otherwise.


One way to tell would be to see what the hospitalization rates and severity of cases are through time.  If the rates and/or severity is lower, the big difference is that the majority of folks were vaccinated.  

With that, you can also see whether the severity is linked to patients who are vaccinated or not.



QV said:


> Did you know people in those fields have varying expert opinions on all this? Only one side gets cancelled. That ok with you?


The side that isn't backed by the vast majority of science?  The side that pushed Ivermectin as a cure?

I'm still waiting on the source for the 0% success rate, by the way.


----------



## CBH99 (1 Oct 2022)

So as someone who’s watched this thread progress, I can say I’ve found quite a bit of enjoyment reading both sides of the argument.

This is one topic where everybody, including myself, is going to have a strong opinion that is a combination of publicly available data, personal experience, the successes & failures of a variety of mandates, and the natural temptation of each side to conclude that they are more right than wrong. 

I have personally actually really enjoyed forgetting my own opinion while reading through these pages, and keeping an open mind/light heart about it all, and only asking questions for clarity. 

Both sides, in my opinion anyway, have extremely valid arguments.  Some of the points turn out to be moot, but for the most part as I read through the back & forth - I absolutely get both sides. 




dapaterson said:


> How much time have you spent studying vaccination theory, epidemiology, public health, or anything else?
> 
> Exactly.


To be fair, how much time have you? 

Or I? Or most people?

Unless that is someone’s employment or field of study, I suspect not many of us studied vaccination theory, epidemiology, public health, or anything else related to the above in any real way. 

Prior to Covid, other than reading the odd news article about a health matter, I can say I probably haven’t ‘studied’ those fields at all.  Even now I wouldn’t really call myself a study of any of them.




QV said:


> Did you know people in those fields have varying expert opinions on all this? Only one side gets cancelled. That ok with you?


Excellent point, regardless of someone’s position on the issue.  

Because that question isn’t actually about Covid.  It’s about censorship.  

It’s about various experts in related fields either being given positive media exposure or ignored/avoided. 


Obviously those that are getting positive media exposure will be heard by mainstream society, and those that are ignored/cast away will not be heard by those same people, even if their points are valid.  

<Anyways, morning mumblings over.  Back to reading…>


----------



## QV (1 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> One way to tell would be to see what the hospitalization rates and severity of cases are through time.  If the rates and/or severity is lower, the big difference is that the majority of folks were vaccinated.
> 
> With that, you can also see whether the severity is linked to patients who are vaccinated or not.
> 
> ...


I said they are zero % effective at stopping transmission. I say again; they do NOT stop transmission. Do you need a peer reviewed study? The obvious observation validates this when vaccinated people still get and transmit C19 multiple times, including probably most people reading this who have some personal experiences.


----------



## QV (1 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> So as someone who’s watched this thread progress, I can say I’ve found quite a bit of enjoyment reading both sides of the argument.
> 
> This is one topic where everybody, including myself, is going to have a strong opinion that is a combination of publicly available data, personal experience, the successes & failures of a variety of mandates, and the natural temptation of each side to conclude that they are more right than wrong.
> 
> ...


The media are masters at justifying censorship by trotting out the crazies as an example why they censor, while censoring the experts too.


----------



## winds_13 (1 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> I'll need sources on that.  And not from Breitbart.
> 
> If a vaccinated person still got Covid, but the symptoms were far less significant (minor cold-like symptoms, rather than bedridden for a few days or worse) than if they weren't vaccinated, then is it still a bad thing?  Or is it a benefit?
> 
> Because that happened to people I know who would not be considered at-risk, including myself.


So, you're basing your opinion on anecdotes? How do you know what reaction these individuals would have had if they were unvaccinated?

Throughout the pandemic, one of the most difficult issues dealing with COVID19 was that a large proportion of cases were asymptomatic yet still spread the virus. This was the case through all variants, regardless of vaccination rates. 

I know people who were bed ridden after catching COVID even though they had one or two boosters. I also know unvaccinated people who displayed no or only mild (sore throat) symptoms. Actually, the only people I know who were bed ridden following COVID infection were vaccinated with atleast one booster... Is this proof of anything, or would that be attributing causality without merit?


----------



## mariomike (1 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> So as someone who’s watched this thread progress, I can say I’ve found quite a bit of enjoyment reading both sides of the argument.


Me too.

But, I don't go to chat rooms for medical advice.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2022)

Some muddling going on.  As an individual, being vaccinated may help you defeat a virus quickly - so quickly that you never realize you were infected.  But a vaccine isn't a magical barrier to being infected, nor a barrier to shedding a (probably very) little virus while infected.  I can only suppose this is what people mean when they advance claims about "prevention of infection".  I have no idea how many times I've been exposed and infected; I only know that I've been without symptoms since this all started.

Time and quantity matter.  As a community, being vaccinated will be effective in reducing transmission, because the window of opportunity for each vaccinated infected individual to infect another tends to be much shorter than for an unvaccinated infected individual, and the virus quantities will tend to be lower.  At the extreme, eradication can be effected.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Oct 2022)

I will admit I am no expert on this but from what I have gleaned very few HEALTHY people died of Covid. 

Co morbidities had a big hand in it.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I will admit I am no expert on this but from what I have gleaned very few HEALTHY people died of Covid.
> 
> Co morbidities had a big hand in it.


On the flip side, some incredibly healthy people and kids have died. And some previously very healthy people have long term effects (including severe organ and respiratory damage, which now renders them vulnerable to getting killed by other common diseases).

And the co-morbidities aren't rare, a very large part of the Canadian population is older, a large portion are overweight, and other very common health issues. At the end of the day, a lot of people are dead due to COVID who otherwise would still be alive.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Oct 2022)

Good thing the vaccine stops people from getting sick and being infectious, then no one will ever get sick again... oh wait...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Oct 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Good thing the vaccine stops people from getting sick and being infectious, then no one will ever get sick again... oh wait...


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz😴


----------



## IKnowNothing (1 Oct 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Throughout the pandemic, one of the most difficult issues dealing with COVID19 was that a large proportion of cases were asymptomatic yet still spread the virus. This was the case through all variants, regardless of vaccination rates.



I alluded to this in my prior tongue in cheek post about going back in time to test asymptomatic "spread" of other diseases through history, but  given the partisan nature of how this disease was perceived I think that modern tracking ability actually did a societal disservice by quantifying this.  If we could go back and PCR test x disease at the level we did for covid- lots of asymptomatic cases spreading the virus. It's the nature of human immune system. Pathogen enters, multiplies-  the order of spread/debilitate/lose depends on the strength of the immune response. But in any case, a tonne more people get infected with any given pathogen than those that get sick.

That being said, one of the most fundamental points of contention regarding the covid 19 vaccines stems from that advancement in technology. In the past "breakthrough infections" were counted by vaccinated people that became seriously ill with a narrow set of symptoms to the point where a hospital ran blood work, not people with the sniffles that stuck a qtip up their nose.


That also being said- this post is Grant's fueled rather than Glenfiddich, so take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Oct 2022)

CBH99 said:


> Okay, I’ll bite as I’m genuinely curious.  What is it then?



I think when people hear the word vaccine they expect vaccination, which according to Google is defined as:



> treatment with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculation.



So people were expecting immunity after receiving the vaccine.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think when people hear the word vaccine they expect vaccination, which according to Google is defined as:
> 
> 
> 
> So people were expecting immunity after receiving the vaccine.


It confers partial immunity, allowing one's own immune system time to rally the defences. Unfortunately, the coronaviridae family of diseases is highly genetically nimble, and at best each booster buys us time until the next mutation. The expectation is that in time, a less lethal, dominant mutation will emerge, and we will be able to manage it in the same way in which we manage influenza. The difference will be that while there is an influenza "season", it appears that the coronavirus will be present in the population year round. While there is promising research on this front, a suitable vaccine candidate has yet to be developed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Oct 2022)

ModlrMike said:


> It confers partial immunity, allowing one's own immune system time to rally the defences. Unfortunately, the coronaviridae family of diseases is highly genetically nimble, and at best each booster buys us time until the next mutation. The expectation is that in time, a less lethal, dominant mutation will emerge, and we will be able to manage it in the same way in which we manage influenza. The difference will be that while there is an influenza "season", it appears that the coronavirus will be present in the population year round. While there is promising research on this front, a suitable vaccine candidate has yet to be developed.



Sure.  Honestly I don't really care.  I, like most reasonably healthy people under 50 with no comorbidities, am over Covid.  I've had my two shots, thanks that's enough for me.

I was just trying to provide some context in our vocabulary usage.  

People heard the word vaccine and they expected to be vaccinated like they would be against small pox.  And I don't blame them.  The very definition, both text book and colloquial, established that.

Much like the use of the word privilege, vaccine or vaccination probably isn't the term that should have been used.  Its created expectations that aren't/weren't based in reality or truth, in this context.  

It's also given some at the extremes of our society more tin foil to wrap around their heads.


----------



## dimsum (2 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Much like the use of the word privilege, vaccine or vaccination probably isn't the term that should have been used. Its created expectations that aren't/weren't based in reality or truth, in this context.


"Covid shot" (like "flu shot") would really give the tinfoil-hat-wearers something to talk about


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> "Covid shot" (like "flu shot") would really give the tinfoil-hat-wearers something to talk about



Lol it sure would.  

How about pre-treatment ?  I don't have the answer.  

I can simply understand that using the word vaccine set some expectations.


----------



## dimsum (2 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Lol it sure would.
> 
> How about pre-treatment ?  I don't have the answer.
> 
> I can simply understand that using the word vaccine set some expectations.


Come to think of it, I wonder if anyone thinks that the "annual flu shot" means they get the flu.

Hmm.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Come to think of it, I wonder if anyone thinks that the "annual flu shot" means they get the flu.
> 
> Hmm.



No idea.  I never got it or paid attention to it beyond passing on timings and locations if folks wanted it.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Oct 2022)

I was in downtown Ottawa yesterday.  The mighty anti Vax protest was about a dozen folks parading through the Byward Market.


----------



## dimsum (2 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> I was in downtown Ottawa yesterday.  The mighty anti Vax protest was about a dozen folks parading through the Byward Market.


Is it Saturday again?  It's prob the same folks who constantly hang out by the benches next to the Terry Fox statue.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Is it Saturday again?  It's prob the same folks who constantly hang out by the benches next to the Terry Fox statue.



Or maybe veterans motorcycle club couldn't find an empty Timmies parking lot ?


----------



## mariomike (2 Oct 2022)

dimsum said:


> Come to think of it, I wonder if anyone thinks that the "annual flu shot" means they get the flu.



We were mandated, so I didn't over-think it.








						Paramedics face dismissal for refusing flu shots
					

Ontario paramedics are challenging a provincial regulation that requires them either to get annual flu shots or give up their jobs. The new law, an amendment to the Ontario Ambulance Act, took effect in fall 2000 and is the first of its kind in Canada. Since then dozens of Ontario paramedics have




					www.cmaj.ca


----------



## QV (8 Oct 2022)

Guidance for Mrna COVID-19 Vaccine | Florida Department of Health
					

Tallahassee, Fla.— Today, State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has announced new guidance regarding mRNA vaccines. The Florida Department of Health (Department) conducted an analysis through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety.




					www.floridahealth.gov
				




If this is accurate, the conspiracy theorist in me suggests this is quite possibly the most innovative bio weapon ever released by a country on its adversaries.


----------



## IKnowNothing (8 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> Guidance for Mrna COVID-19 Vaccine | Florida Department of Health
> 
> 
> Tallahassee, Fla.— Today, State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has announced new guidance regarding mRNA vaccines. The Florida Department of Health (Department) conducted an analysis through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety.
> ...


If this is accurate, the conspiracy theorist in you should seriously consider the conclusions it wants to draw from misleading summaries based on 9 deaths, and a 95% confidence interval that damn near includes the baseline rate.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Oct 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Good thing the vaccine stops people from getting sick and being infectious, then no one will ever get sick again... oh wait...


I think it would be nice if everyone could just get off their soap boxes for one second and accept that their high horse probably isn't as fast as they thought it was.

Vaccines weren't the panacea they were made out to be.  They should be looked at as one tool in the toolbox but they should never have been politicized the way they were.  Likewise, I don't think curtailing of social liberties and other immediate gratification decisions undertaken by our overlords was worth the cost.  The long term consequences of those decisions are playing out now as we speak.

The pandemic is over, COVID is just like every other endemic disease we can potentially catch now. I've had it twice and am triple vaxxed, it didn't kill me and I was back to work within days of my last bout.  Lets drop the nonsense, stop fighting with each other and move on.

If you're significantly overweight, out of shape, have a drinking or substance abuse problem, don't watch what you eat and make poor choices......

Well you should probably look in the mirror and take a little bit of personal responsibility for your own affairs before throwing shade at anti-vaxxers.


----------



## Quirky (8 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> If you're significantly overweight, out of shape, have a drinking or substance abuse problem, don't watch what you eat and make poor choices......


…..then the CAF might be right for you!


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> …..then the CAF might be right for you!


Are PT and healthy eating habits essential activities?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Oct 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Are PT and healthy eating habits essential activities?


What are those?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2022)

I took the first two shots. Nothing else. Didn't  mask significantly, didn't stop socializing. I also had/have zero respect for the way the liberal government foisted their edicts and demands on the population and then destroyed people's  lives and livelihoods with their dictatorial orders and guesses and made up bullshit. I will never allow myself to think again, that this government is looking out for our welfare.  We are nothing more than a source of income for trudeau's lies, deceit and international bumbling. He could care less about Canadians or Canada. Just whatever makes his stock portfolio increase or impresses his globalist cronies.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2022)

And does Doug get off scot-free?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And does Doug get off scot-free?


For following the federal mandates like every other premier? Yes.


----------



## Remius (10 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> For following the federal mandates like every other premier? Yes.


Provinces set their own mandates.  And likely had way more impact on your daily life than the federal ones.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Oct 2022)

Humanity survived the Black Death (the plague), The Spanish Flu (not the Inquisition), and a few more including Polio and COVID. Humanity once again has survived.

I took three shots and refuse to take any more.


----------



## mariomike (10 Oct 2022)

I'm thankful to have received the polio vaccine as a child.

Guess I could have survived without it. But, I remember seeing older kids with leg braces. And later on, lifting polio victims out of their iron lungs. In their living rooms.









						Can't Help Falling In Love With A Vaccine: How Polio Campaign Beat Vaccine Hesitancy
					

This isn't the first big vaccine rollout, and the past holds lessons for the pandemic present. Here's a look at how the polio vaccine overcame U.S. hesitancy.




					www.npr.org
				



Also thankfull that, back then, people did not get their medical advice in chat rooms.


----------



## lenaitch (10 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> I'm thankful to have received the polio vaccine as a child.
> 
> Guess I could have survived without it. But, I remember seeing older kids with leg braces. And later on, lifting polio victims out of their iron lungs. In their living rooms.
> 
> ...


Yup.  I remember a couple of kids in public school in the '50s wearing leg braces and crutches because of polio.

I suppose infection and mortality rates are cold comfort if you're the one.  For folks with any virulent disease, the infection rate is 100%.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2022)

The polio vaccine was a true vaccination. The covid shots are not.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The polio vaccine was a true vaccination. The covid shots are not.









The CDC says that is incorrect, as the COVID mRNA vaccines still trigger an immune response.









						COVID-19 Vaccine Facts
					

What you need to know about COVID-19 vaccines, myths and facts.




					www.cdc.gov


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The polio vaccine was a true vaccination. The covid shots are not.


And polio is a whole different virus,....comparing virus's with such different paths of transmission is ridiculous.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2022)

Infanteer said:


> The CDC says that is incorrect, as the COVID mRNA vaccines still trigger an immune response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The CDC. 🙄🤣


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> And polio is a whole different virus,....comparing virus's with such different paths of transmission is ridiculous.


You make a comparison then.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> You make a comparison then.


Apple and orange?


----------



## dimsum (11 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Apple and orange?


Guns and butter.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2022)

Guns and Roses


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Guns and Roses


Oh-oh, I can see where this is going…


----------



## Infanteer (11 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The CDC. 🙄🤣



Anonymous internet chat room profile making medical determinations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2022)

The CDC is fauchi. Fauchi is a flip flopping liar.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The CDC is fauchi. Fauchi is a flip flopping liar.


Guess that makes all of Canada Trudeau.....


----------



## QV (11 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Guess that makes all of Canada Trudeau.....


That's not that far of a stretch at this point.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2022)

Infanteer said:


> Anonymous internet chat room profile making medical determinations.


And there is the issue - the internet and the preponderance of bullshit contained within it. In 1953 there was no internet - the best you could hope for in rural areas was the party telephone line and a newspaper. Education was scant and people post WW2 tended to do what they were told.

My wife was one of those who had polio (you can see the effect of it)  and I do recall children older than me in the "Forest Gump" magic shoes.
I don't have stats available but I wonder what the death rate from polio was versus COVID.



			https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/265661/PMC2538162.pdf?sequence=1
		


Here are some stats on Polio.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> The CDC is fauchi. Fauchi is a flip flopping liar.



There is good evidence out there that Dr Fauci made some bad calls - WaPo did a good investigative piece on the origins of the COVID-19 virus and how his recommendations were plain wrong.

That being said, great thing about our institutions in the West is that they are more than just the guy or gal on top, and the expertise of CDC as one of the world's top organizations on disease goes beyond the policy advice of its head.  I'll take what they say over some random internet guy 11 days out of 10 - doesn't mean I won't listen to what the internet guy has to say, but he's going to have to prove that vaccines have microchips and horse dewormer cures cancer.


----------



## QV (11 Oct 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579940690431279104


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1579940690431279104


People still won't believe it.  It's  human nature. They've  been taken for a ride and just refuse to admit it for fear of looking silly and gullible amongst their freinds.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> People still won't believe it.  It's  human nature. They've  been taken for a ride and just refuse to admit it for fear of looking silly and gullible amongst their freinds.


Bullshit!

I've said right from the start that in 20 years anti-vaxxers might be proved right when we all have an extra hand growing out of our foreheads. 
But right NOW it appears to be the right thing for humanity.



It's pretty simple really.....this didn't turn out to be the Black Plague,  or the Spanish Flu, so you can weave and bob all you want, call us all the names you want, but no matter how much you're dug in, you can't argue that something made a difference.


----------



## Quirky (12 Oct 2022)

I heard we're in a new wave with new variants. Mask up, get your boosters, stay inside, give me your address so I can weld your door shut.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2022)

No one called you names. If you felt compelled to self identify, that's your problem. Not mine.

We won't  know the knock on effects for years. Meanwhile, feel free to follow the explanations of big pharma. The same one that have been lying and obsfucating the truth of their products since the beginning. 

You can believe whatever you wish, but because I disagree with your personal opinion, doesn't  make either of us right. I simply state my opinions, nobody is forcing you to discuss them. My right to state my opinion trumps your need to shut me up.


----------



## McG (14 Oct 2022)

Military eases COVID-19 vaccine mandate, presses ahead with releasing unvaccinated troops
					

Vaccines will no longer be a mandatory prerequisite for those serving in uniform, but members who already refused to get vaccinated will be released




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




The continued requirement to get two shots has come to an end. But, if you refused that lawful order while it was in effect, you are still getting kicked out.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

McG said:


> Military eases COVID-19 vaccine mandate, presses ahead with releasing unvaccinated troops
> 
> 
> Vaccines will no longer be a mandatory prerequisite for those serving in uniform, but members who already refused to get vaccinated will be released
> ...


I agree with the release.  If you aren't able to follow orders, you are "unsuitable for military service". 

I would personally classify it as "conscientious objection" but that's a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> I heard we're in a new wave with new variants. Mask up, get your boosters, stay inside, give me your address so I can weld your door shut.


Can confirm; got it about a month ago, kicked my ass hard for 3 days, was still dragging for a few weeks, but wasn't hospitalized or any other longer running symptoms.

To me that's a win for vaccines; even though it's not 100% effective, was close enough to the original that my immune system was able to fight it off with no major issues that needed a doctor.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Can confirm; got it about a month ago, kicked my ass hard for 3 days, was still dragging for a few weeks, but wasn't hospitalized or any other longer running symptoms.
> 
> To me that's a win for vaccines; even though it's not 100% effective, was close enough to the original that my immune system was able to fight it off with no major issues that needed a doctor.


I'm going to come across as an ass but I'm going to say it anyways:

Based on what evidence exactly?  Are you sitting at home, hooked up to a machine studying your immune response or did you just "know in your gut that it worked?" 🤨

I'm happy you took the Vaccine and you feel that it did something for you. My spouse just got COVID, has all her boosters and was on her ass for a week straight and is only on the mend now. 

Meanwhile I haven't gotten the most recent booster, spent my entire days nursing her while continuing to go to work.  I never isolated from her, never caught COVID and continued to work the entire time.  We would spend her evening enjoying popsicles I bought while I made her soup and gave her the daily dose of Nyquil.  I also tested myself daily just to be sure. 

Does my personal anecdote somehow hold less merit than yours?

Here is a suggestion:  if you want the vaccine or think you need it, get it. Otherwise, the pandemic is over and lets stop being hypochondriacs and get back to living life. Lets also stop projecting what we think others should be doing.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Oct 2022)

The medical evidence studying outcomes that has documented risk of death by age group based on vaccination status enters the discussion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> The medical evidence studying outcomes that has documented risk of death by age group based on vaccination status enters the discussion.


Well link it then.  Show me this medical evidence that you have spent time extensively researching to form your own conclusion.

I've gotten COVID a number of times, hasn't killed me yet.  I've got way more of a chance dying from my current line of work than I do from COVID.  

The conditions are dangerous and adverse enough that I don't need some "work from home office armchair nannies" telling me what additional PPE I need to wear, that significantly increases my chance of seriously injuring myself jumping on and off moving equipment because I'm physically exerting myself and my safety glasses keep fogging up from the BS mask.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Is my personal anecdote somehow hold less merit than yours?


Deleted.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Well link it then.  Show me this medical evidence that you have spent time extensively researching to form your own conclusion.
> 
> I've gotten COVID a number of times, hasn't killed me yet.  I've got way more of a chance dying from my current line of work than I do from COVID.
> 
> The conditions are dangerous and adverse enough that I don't need some "work from home office armchair nannies" telling me what additional PPE I need to wear, that significantly increases my chance of seriously injuring myself jumping on and off moving equipment because I'm physically exerting myself and my safety glasses keep fogging up from the BS mask.


Why the need for safety glasses in your line of work? 

Yes the question is a bit of a trap.  Are you mandated to wear them by someone?  Did someone determine (maybe even a “work from home armchair nannie” type)? 

Lots of people I know don’t feel they need for helmets, life jackets etc etc.  Are they right?  Wrong?  Or should we just let everyone decide for themselves?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

Remius said:


> Why the need for safety glasses in your line of work?
> 
> Yes the question is a bit of a trap.  Are you mandated to wear them by someone?  Did someone determine (maybe even a “work from home armchair nannie” type)?
> 
> Lots of people I know don’t feel they need for helmets, life jackets etc etc.  Are they right?  Wrong?  Or should we just let everyone decide for themselves?


I was anticipating this response 😉

The reason the safety glasses are mandated is because "The Company" mandates them to lower accidents in the workplace.  

Accidents cost the company money, increases insurance rates and reduces profitability so their is a performance incentive to prevent them. Having an accident prevention strategy is good for business.  It optimizes assets and drives increased shareholder value.

The difference between COVID mandates and an accident prevention strategy is that one is created by the Company to increase profitability while one is forced on the Company by the Government and has the effect of decreasing profitability.  

COVID mandates cost the company money. They are an additional constraint that end up costing more money for the company and also for the consumer. 

The current dysfunction of the supply chain and industries like the Airlines should serve as an example of this.  

Whether the cost of mandates are worth it or not is up for debate. I doubt the Government will commission a study any time soon that says the mandates were BAD FOR BUSINESS.


----------



## McG (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Well link it then.  Show me this medical evidence that you have spent time extensively researching to form your own conclusion.


I have lost count of the number of times declare there is no evidence to support that vaxines work, then the evidence is posted, then there is some deflection because the proof does not support the confirmation bias, then some days later were are again told that there is no evidence to support that vaxines work.  Here, let me spoon feed you: United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status


----------



## McG (14 Oct 2022)

Here's another, from Ontario so closer to home: Ontario Dashboard - Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

@Remius  then there is also the fact that you've now made the conditions of work so terrible for some of these critical industries that nobody wants to do them anymore or if they are going to do them, well the "price" in exchange for work just went up significantly to you.



			StackPath
		




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-trucker-shortage-insurace-1.6588358
		










						Large rail union rejects contract deal with railroads, renewing strike possibility
					

The U.S.'s third largest railroad union rejected a deal with employers Monday, renewing the possibility of a strike that could cripple the economy.




					www.pbs.org
				






			https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/consumer-prices-supply-chain-delays-1.6558371
		


We shall see how awesome all of these decisions are when people run out of essential goods and services and the supply chain finally breaks.

As an anecdote, all of the people I work with agree that the COVID mandates made our workplace terrible and if they had to do it again, they would probably start seeking alternate employment.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

McG said:


> I have lost count of the number of times declare there is no evidence to support that vaxines work, then the evidence is posted, then there is some deflection because the proof does not support the confirmation bias, then some days later were are again told that there is no evidence to support that vaxines work.  Here, let me spoon feed you: United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status
> 
> View attachment 74243


I am vaccinated, you don't need to convince me 😉.  I haven't gotten my most recent booster but I have three vaccines.

The problem with generalized statistics is they lack details and we all know the devil is in the details.

It would be great to see the "Risk" broken down by age category, sex, race, #of co-morbidities, etc.  Why should I be lumped together with a geriatric?  Or someone that has multiple co-morbidities?

Your statistics which you paint as irrefutable facts lack the rigorous detail to make an informed decision.  It's the equivalent of Soviet Planned Economics 😉


----------



## McG (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @Remius  then there is also the fact that you've now made the conditions of work so terrible for some of these critical industries that nobody wants to do them anymore or if they are going to do them, well the "price" in exchange for work just went up significantly to you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of those articles mention a COVID, Vacination, or PPE nexus.  New truck drivers can't get insured and US rail workers want more paid sick days. You are getting lost in red herrings. 



Humphrey Bogart said:


> Your statistics which you paint as irrefutable facts lack the rigorous detail to make an informed decision. It's the equivalent of Soviet Planned Economics


Yeah, there's the deflection.  We'll just rely on wild conjecture & anecdote while imagining away what can be measured & known.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

McG said:


> Here's another, from Ontario so closer to home: Ontario Dashboard - Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table
> 
> View attachment 74244


I am reminded of the following:









			https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Stalin_drought.jpg/800px-Stalin_drought.jpg
		


And the consequences of such plans:


----------



## QV (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm going to come across as an ass but I'm going to say it anyways:
> 
> Based on what evidence exactly?  Are you sitting at home, hooked up to a machine studying your immune response or did you just "know in your gut that it worked?" 🤨
> 
> ...



I've personally experienced and witnessed similar circumstances. Fully boosted colleagues are bed ridden for days and off sic for weeks. I've seen those without boosters fair far better, I've seen those without vaccines hardly affected. And I've also seen some unvaccinated get fairly sick too. 

Since there are so many different experiences and outcomes, perhaps a forced mandate is the absolute wrong approach.


----------



## Quirky (14 Oct 2022)

Our workplace is 100% inoculated with good portion who have one or two boosters. We still have people who are sick with covid, some who are not testing and just staying home because they don't feel well. Ironically, those who are religious with boosters, still wear masks when going outdoors in public and bathing in hand sanitizer on their desks are the ones who get sick the most.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

McG said:


> None of those articles mention a COVID, Vacination, or PPE nexus.  New truck drivers can't get insured and US rail workers want more paid sick days. You are getting lost in red herrings.
> 
> 
> Yeah, there's the deflection.  We'll just rely on wild conjecture & anecdote while imagining away what can be measured & known.


No that wasn't a deflection.  It's impossible to know with certainty what COA was the best because only one COA was attempted and the others weren't tested.  The Government chose which horse it wanted to back and then got on with it.

The only real comparison we have is between various different National and Sub-National bodies, the approaches they took and even then, the data is incomplete because of discrepancies in reporting, how deaths were accounted for, testing capabilities, treatment, government control, coverups, etc.

Take this researcher from UofT for instance:









						Canadian COVID researcher defends underreported death data against Premier Moe's 'misinformation' claims
					

A Canadian researcher is defending her data showing COVID-19 deaths across the country could be under-reported by at least 50 per cent after Saskatchewan’s premier claimed it was “misinformation.”




					regina.ctvnews.ca
				




She alleges that COVID deaths are underreported in Canada by at least 50%.  Basically with the exact same mandates as other Countries, we end up with a significantly different outcome.  The question becomes why? 

Lets say we did underreport deaths?  By accident or through negligence, lack of testing, etc and her stats are correct?

What would you say then?  

@McG  I'm not here to convince you, you appear to have made up your mind already. All I would ask is that you consider the possibility that you may not be 100% correct.  Maybe you're 90% correct and you have room for a 10% amendment of your views?


----------



## QV (14 Oct 2022)

McG said:


> Military eases COVID-19 vaccine mandate, presses ahead with releasing unvaccinated troops
> 
> 
> Vaccines will no longer be a mandatory prerequisite for those serving in uniform, but members who already refused to get vaccinated will be released
> ...



If you refused the C19 vaccine you're getting kicked out still, but you won't need it to enroll. It seems to me the appropriate thing would be to allow those to continue to serve. If you want to discipline them for refusing a "lawful order" than fine, but dismissal seems excessive since you can now enroll without being vaccinated. 

Sounds like a partial walk back while trying to save face.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm going to come across as an ass but I'm going to say it anyways:
> 
> Based on what evidence exactly?  Are you sitting at home, hooked up to a machine studying your immune response or did you just "know in your gut that it worked?" 🤨
> 
> ...


So for my personal anecdote, I had COVID and long COVID in the first wave (about 5 months before vaccines were out), and had zero improvement until I got the first vaccine. I'm still recovering, and finally starting to get lung capacity back, but I definitely was still down a quart when I got sick again, and still going through some testing to see if there was permanent damage. Previous to all that I was pretty healthy, ate well and had none of the risk factors or commobidities, so the last few years has really sucked, but at least I'm still functional, even if QoL has been impacted. I'm not being a hypochondriac; this has changed my day to day life. Others in high risk groups have just died, so could be worse.

The evidence showing vaccination decreases hospitalizations across all age ranges is pretty clear, so reasonably confident to say that it was overall a positive impact.

Some people had chicken pox as a kid, and keep getting shingles as adults. Immune systems are complicated, but as near as I can tell for whatever reason I seem more susceptible than others to COVID, and entirely reasonable to assume, that based on evidence from the overall population, I faired better with the vaccination then I would have without it.

Anecdotes =/= evidence, and glad your spouse is okay and you didn't get sick, but your personal experience is just that. Similarly mine is just my own, but is consistent with the general trend shown by actual evidence. Your sample size is two, I'm looking at my own plus data of several billion people.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I've gotten COVID a number of times, hasn't killed me yet.  I've got way more of a chance dying from my current line of work than I do from COVID.


I wonder if you killed anyone by passing it on?  Hypothetically of course....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

QV said:


> If you refused the C19 vaccine you're getting kicked out still, but you won't need it to enroll. It seems to me the appropriate thing would be to allow those to continue to serve. If you want to discipline them for refusing a "lawful order" than fine, but dismissal seems excessive since you can now enroll without being vaccinated.
> 
> Sounds like a partial walk back while trying to save face.


I actually agree with this decision.  At the time, the evidence suggested that vaccination was the best course of action.

I believe unlimited liability is sacrosanct and needs to be protected at all costs so I think it was a reasonable order given the circumstances.

People shouldn't get to choose which orders they follow and don't follow.


----------



## Quirky (14 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I wonder if you killed anyone by passing it on? Hypothetically of course....



If I did, would I know? No. Would I care? No. You make decisions every day that's life and death. People dying from the flu is just bad luck and mother nature.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> People shouldn't get to choose which orders they follow and don't follow.


OK OK forgive the crayon eating velociraptor here BUT I thought the whole idea in a military was to follow lawful orders. 

Or did that change?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> OK OK forgive the crayon eating velociraptor here BUT I thought the whole idea in a military was to follow lawful orders.
> 
> Or did that change?


That is what he's saying,......maybe you need Crayon, Extra Strength at your age??


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I wonder if you killed anyone by passing it on?  Hypothetically of course....


I could have or I could not have but that's impossible to say.  I think almost everyone has had COVID by now so that could be true for anyone.  I don't actually know one person that's died of COVID.  I was confined to a floating tin can for most of COVID so I technically spent probably the most time of anyone here "isolating" 😉.

It's not a very good way to think about infectious diseases.  Did you think like that before COVID?  It's hubris to think that we could control a disease. 



Navy_Pete said:


> So for my personal anecdote, I had COVID and long COVID in the first wave (about 5 months before vaccines were out), and had zero improvement until I got the first vaccine. I'm still recovering, and finally starting to get lung capacity back, but I definitely was still down a quart when I got sick again, and still going through some testing to see if there was permanent damage. Previous to all that I was pretty healthy, ate well and had none of the risk factors or commobidities, so the last few years has really sucked, but at least I'm still functional, even if QoL has been impacted. I'm not being a hypochondriac; this has changed my day to day life. Others in high risk groups have just died, so could be worse.
> 
> The evidence showing vaccination decreases hospitalizations across all age ranges is pretty clear, so reasonably confident to say that it was overall a positive impact.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the polite response and am sorry to hear of your struggles.  Agreed that our anecdotes =/= evidence.

My issue is that the current debate is too simplistic in that it looks at Vaccination and Mandates in isolation and ignores other consequences of those decisions.

Every action taken has a consequence.  You may save X # of people today from Factor A, but if that decision results in Y # of people dying tomorrow from Factor B?  Did you actually save anyone or did you create problems in other areas that will have greater consequences later on?

Another personal anecdote which will perhaps explain my position a little better. My former partner is a Public Health Official, she did her PHD on Social Determinants of Health (SDH) so while we were still together, I had to listen to her talk about these issues a lot.  

She used to bemoan the emphasis on investment in primary care vs public health.  There are lots of studies that show that SDH are actually more important than healthcare interventions themselves in influencing health outcomes.  

That's why I think it's wrong for us to place so much emphasis on vaccines.  Vaccines are a tool, they aren't the only one.  

For example:









						CDC study finds about 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese
					

An overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the CDC said.




					www.cnbc.com
				




Obesity/BMI appears to also be an important factor in COVID hospitalizations yet I don't see anyone really talking about that?

It should be even more of a concern because obesity actually increased over the pandemic:









						Study sees significant BMI increase among children during pandemic
					

ANAHEIM, Calif. — A study found a significant increase in BMI among children seen during well visits at a hospital in Virginia in the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably among Black females.




					www.healio.com
				












						Obese people twice as likely to die from Covid
					

Condition is linked with several other ailments, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and asthma, which may lead to worse outcomes




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we discussed it here at length a few months back? Though we would be a _terrible _example of a cross section of Canadian society.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> I think we discussed it here at length a few months back? Though we would be a _terrible _example of a cross section of Canadian society.


Essentially I think the problem is too big for us to understand.  There are too many variables, too many inputs to manage.

I am not an antivaxxer, I've taken three vaccine shots and believe they are an important tool.  But they weren’t the panacea for COVID everyone made them out to be.  I am not convinced that repeated lockdowns were necessary and I'm not convinced that other Government interventions were necessary either.

The Omicron variant and the fact it ripped through the general population like a hot knife in butter did more to end the pandemic than any of the vaccines or other interventions did.


----------



## futurepensioner (14 Oct 2022)

McG said:


> Military eases COVID-19 vaccine mandate, presses ahead with releasing unvaccinated troops
> 
> 
> Vaccines will no longer be a mandatory prerequisite for those serving in uniform, but members who already refused to get vaccinated will be released
> ...



That is not what the CDS said in his message.

This is what was stated:

_"For those small few who refused the COVID-19 vaccination under the previous directive, who have not received an accommodation and have not yet completed an administrative review, any remedial measure will remain on your files as a record of non-compliance with a lawful order.  For those who have received a decision to release, proceedings will continue."_

So, if you chain of command was lazy and/or slow to react, then you get to stay in.  How is this equal justice for all??  Should be interesting.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

Anyone taking bets that we'll get a lock down for a National Christmas present from the Trudeaus?



Trudeau urges Canadians to get their COVID, flu shots to avoid other health measures​
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is urging Canadians to get their influenza and COVID-19 vaccines soon to avoid the need for additional health measures this winter.

Speaking at an announcement in Kanata, Ont. on Monday, Trudeau encouraged Canadians to ensure they receive the full complement of COVID-19 and seasonal flu vaccines.

*"If we are able to get a high enough of level of vaccination, we reduce the danger of having to take other health measures to make sure that we're all safe and not overloading our hospitals," Trudeau said.*



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-flu-vaccination-trudeau-1.6619400


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Anyone taking bets that we'll get a lock down for a National Christmas present from the Trudeaus?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He can go pound sand. Him and his doctor.


----------



## kev994 (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Anyone taking bets that we'll get a lock down for a National Christmas present from the Trudeaus?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can’t see that happening, it would be a net loss in the polls. Remember his primary job is to get re-elected.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Anyone taking bets that we'll get a lock down for a National Christmas present from the Trudeaus?


Except that's a provincial, not federal, area of responsibility.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Except that's a provincial, not federal, area of responsibility.



Smart Premiers are able to confuse the electorate about that


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2022)

Doug Ford, too.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> He can go pound sand. Him and his doctor.


----------



## Quirky (17 Oct 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Anyone taking bets that we'll get a lock down for a National Christmas present from the Trudeaus?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hospitals are already overloaded and many ERs are closing due to staffing shortages. More people will die not because of masks or vaccines, but because our utopian healthcare system sucks.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2022)

Because it's overloaded with people suffering from a disease whose spread can be contained by simple things like masking.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Because it's overloaded with people suffering from a disease whose spread can be contained by simple things like masking.


The last 5 waves and lockdowns during mandatory masking have entered the chat.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2022)

Which successfully lowered the load in hospitals.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Because it's overloaded with people suffering from a disease whose spread can be contained by simple things like masking.


It was overloaded before Covid showed up, its just the straw which broke the camels back


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Oct 2022)

Anecdotal. We also massively increased opioid deaths and Stage 4 cancers during the same time period. Old t-shirts over your face don't spot airborne respiratory viruses.

You want to wear a mask, go nuts. Our garbage health care system can't handle flu every year, and now it gets seasonal COVID too. You're literally suggesting we mask the problem with the adult version of a security blanket.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Because it's overloaded with people suffering from a disease whose spread can be contained by simple things like masking.


Really? Weren't we told masks don't work. So your hypoythesis basically says, if we want to eradicate it, everyone should spend all of our time in A suits.

I say let's do this! I've been to the Bug School and can stay MOPP high forever.

If someone is worried about me making them ill, THEY can wear a mask. All this does is cause division, angst, isolation amongst many mental and physical problems. Do they stop the threat? Depends on who you talk too. Fauchi and Tam did nothing but flip flop and confuse people. Personally, I would rather a small group die of covid than subject hundreds of millions to the mental and physical problems these mandates cause.

Its called PPE - PERSONAL protective equipment


----------



## winds_13 (17 Oct 2022)

McG said:


> Here's another, from Ontario so closer to home: Ontario Dashboard - Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table
> 
> View attachment 74244



The statistics on the Science Advisory Table website have never accurately reflected the data coming out of Public Health Ontario. I messaged them about a year ago asking about this and never got a response. In the main page's footnotes it mentions that risk has been divided into 2 categories based on a single age cut-off... do you think this is clearly illustrated in the way the numbers are presented? 

"Estimates by vaccination status are age-standardized using Ontario’s current population and a single age cut-off to take into account differences in vaccine uptake and the risk of severe disease between children, adolescents and young adults (0-29 years) and remaining adults (30+ years)."

Also, it states that what they present are "estimates by vaccination status". The Ontario government website used to display data on infections, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status (actual numbers, not estimates). Before they stopped reporting these numbers around May, unvaccinated Ontarians had represented the lowest risk population for hospitalization and death for about 5 months straight (age trends in vaccination likely played a major role).


----------



## Quirky (17 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Its called PPE - PERSONAL protective equipment



Why do you hate grandpa.


----------



## brihard (18 Oct 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Before they stopped reporting these numbers around May, unvaccinated Ontarians had represented the lowest risk population for hospitalization and death for about 5 months straight (age trends in vaccination likely played a major role).



Uhh… What are you smoking? Unvaccinated people were a grossly disproportionate source of deaths and serious illness. I suspect you’re getting all fucked up from seeing slightly more vaccinated than unvaccinated people hospitalized, but with over 85% of the population vaccinated. Classic base rate fallacy.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Oct 2022)

Quirky said:


> Hospitals are already overloaded and many ERs are closing due to staffing shortages. More people will die not because of masks or vaccines, but because our utopian healthcare system sucks.


I hope they lockdown again, I want some FREEDOM for Christmas


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I hope they lockdown again, I want some FREEDOM for Christmas



My freedom rolls on 18 wheels and coal rollin' diesel engines.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> My freedom rolls on 18 wheels and coal rollin' diesel engines.


Justin can invoke the Emergencies Act again.  😁

On a more serious note, if they started locking down again and bringing back mandates, I think there would be an all out civil insurrection.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Justin can invoke the Emergencies Act again.  😁
> 
> On a more serious note, if they started locking down again and bringing back mandates, I think there would be an all out civil insurrection.



JT and his party would love a violent insurrection you know like Jan 6th in the states.

I think he's truly disappointed in the restraint shown by all sides during the convoy.


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> JT and his party would love a violent insurrection you know like Jan 6th in the states.
> 
> I think he's truly disappointed in the restraint shown by all sides during the convoy.


I think he's truly disappointed at the lack of action by authorities and is disappointed he had to use the EA in the first place.

He let the protest go on for a long time, giving the city and province tons of rope, with which they hung themselves with.

He then enacted the EA in a very specific, targeted, and proportional manner. 

He then deactivated the EA after less than two weeks.

And then he called for an inquiry on his use of the EA.

The last one should be the most telling piece; instead of waiting for the uproar from his opponents to reach an untenable fever-pitch and caving to their demands for accountability, he initiated it himself instead of trying (fruitless as it may have been) to avoid accountability.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> I think he's truly disappointed at the lack of action by authorities and is disappointed he had to use the EA in the first place.
> 
> He let the protest go on for a long time, giving the city and province tons of rope, with which they hung themselves with.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


>


@PuckChaser can you remove this post by HT? 

You removed one of my posts explaining that memes are not allowed, and not only is this a meme, it lacks any substance as a response to my post.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> @PuckChaser can you remove this post by HT?
> 
> You removed one of my posts explaining that memes are not allowed, and not only is this a meme, it lacks any substance as a response to my post.




Lol 

Jesus, sensitive much ?  

We can't use .gifs yet we have a function for that ? 

The substance is Trudeau appreciates your support.


----------



## btrudy (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> JT and his party would love a violent insurrection you know like Jan 6th in the states.
> 
> I think he's truly disappointed in the restraint shown by all sides during the convoy.



This is the type of insane rambling I'd expect from the tinfoil hat wearing homeless dude downtown. Seeing it from someone who claims to be a Chief is frankly rather disturbing.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

btrudy said:


> This is the type of insane rambling I'd expect from the tinfoil hat wearing homeless dude downtown. Seeing it from someone who claims to be a Chief is frankly rather disturbing.



Why ?  Is it so hard to believe a corrupt politician would like/hope for an event they could use for political gain ?


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Really? Weren't we told masks don't work. So your hypoythesis basically says, if we want to eradicate it, everyone should spend all of our time in A suits.



Who told you masks don't work? While they aren't as effective against Omicron, they still have an effect and need to be part of a holistic approach to tackling future outbreaks, and all of the major health organizations still purport their usefulness:

CDC: Masks and Respirators

ECDC: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/de...the-SARS-CoV-2-Omicron-variant-of-concern.pdf

Health Canada: COVID-19 mask use: Advice for community settings  - Canada.ca

WHO: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Masks

HHS: Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Mayo Clinic: Can face masks protect against COVID-19?

John Hopkins: Hopkins experts support mask use despite judge's ruling

Nautre.com (a study): Evaluation of different types of face masks to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2: a modeling study - Scientific Reports


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

I don't understand the angst around masks either way. 

If you want to wear one do so.  If you don't, don't. But leave each other alone about it. 

I don't wear one, but if it's mandated that I will, then I will again.  And if I'm going somewhere that requires them, I respect the wishes of that place and it's people.


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Why ?  Is it so hard to believe a corrupt politician would like/hope for an event they could use for political gain ?


Yes. While I have an extremely cynical view of politicians in general:

1. It is far more likely that JT is a decent person and doesn't want Canadians to have "suffer" in whatever event occurs;
2. It is far more likely that even JT would feel that the stress of having to deal with the situation would outweigh whatever selfish, legacy-related ambitions he might have.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> Yes. While I have an extremely cynical view of politicians in general:
> 
> 1. It is far more likely that JT is a decent person and doesn't want Canadians to have "suffer" in whatever event occurs;
> 2. It is far more likely that even JT would feel that the stress of having to deal with the situation would outweigh whatever selfish, legacy-related ambitions he might have.



I disagree.


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> I disagree.


This is a much better response than your last one. Thank you.


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> This is a much better response than your last one. Thank you.



I'm glad I could be a bright spot in your day.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Oct 2022)

I think you guys should bro hug it out!


----------



## Halifax Tar (18 Oct 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think you guys should bro hug it out!



I'm told I'm an amazing cuddler.


----------



## winds_13 (18 Oct 2022)

brihard said:


> Uhh… What are you smoking? Unvaccinated people were a grossly disproportionate source of deaths and serious illness. I suspect you’re getting all fucked up from seeing slightly more vaccinated than unvaccinated people hospitalized, but with over 85% of the population vaccinated. Classic base rate fallacy.
> 
> View attachment 74300


I am not sure why you think my statement has anything to do with "base rate fallacy", and your accusation does not offer any substantiation to support your slanderous assertion. My statement was based off of the data being provided by the government of Ontario prior to them ceasing to report their data sets in a convenient manner, no longer providing graphs on their website to show incidence by vaccination type, breakdown of hospitalized/ICU cases over time, etc. (you can still access this information, in a less digestible format from Datasets - Ontario Data Catalogue). I do understand statistical analysis perfectly well (I have the postgrad credentials to substantiate this statement).

My statement was representative of the hospitalization/death rate (not total number as you seemed to have assumed). I even suggested that the likely cause was the difference in vaccination status by age groups, which I will attempt to explain. Ontario has a very high rate of vaccination and, not surprisingly, vaccine and booster uptake is highest amongst the oldest members of the population... The oldest segments of the population are also overwhelming represented in hospitalizations and deaths from COVID19. While those aged over 60 represent relatively small portion of the total population (3.5 million people), and are almost all vaccinated with at least 2 doses, they represent the majority of total deaths and hospitalizations from COVID19 (in Ontario, at least). In contrast, those under 60 represent a much larger portion of the total population (about 11 million people), are overall significantly less vaccinated as a group (particularly when it comes to booster uptake) and represent a minority of total hospitalizations and deaths.

According to the Public Health Ontario website, the current rate of hospitalization admission for COVID19 of those over aged 80 and over is 25.2 per 100,000, those 60-79 is 4.2 per 100,000, and those aged 40-59 is 0.6. Thus the "rate" of hospitalization for those over 80 is currently about 42 times higher than those aged 40 to 59, in Ontario at least. As for deaths, those 80+ have a current death rate from COVID19 of 4.7 per 100,000, those aged 60-79 have a death rate of 0.4 per 100, 000, 40-59 year olds have a 0.1 per 100, 000 death rate, and 20 to 39 year olds have a 0 per 100,000 death rate. Thus, someone over 80 had a 47 times higher chance of death than someone aged 50-59, at the population level. These are all based off of the last week's reporting and can be found on the Ontario Public Health website (see below).

In Ontario, those aged 80+ have a reported rate of "full vaccination" (minimum of a primary series consisting of 2 doses) of 94.6%, and a single booster (minimum) rate of 86.4%. 40-49 year olds have a booster rate of 54.6%. 30-39 year olds have a booster rate of 46.3%.18-29 year olds have a booster rate of 38.9%. Second booster uptake is 59.6% for those over 80, 13% for those 50-59, and 4% for 18-29 year olds. As for 2nd boosters, those over 80 have a 59.6% uptake rate, compared with a 7.3% uptake for those aged 30-39. I know that I skipped on reporting some age ranges, it was for reasons of brevity, the information is well presented at the link below.

I have not suggested that the vaccines increase risk of hospitalization/death from COVID19, BTW. If you were to take each age group individually, say those over 80, then you are likely to see higher risk of hospitalization/death amongst the unvaccinated portion of that particularly age group. When you expand this data out to the population level though, and only classify people as "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated" (not accounting for age), you find a higher rate of hospitalization/death amongst those who are "vaccinated". The data is misleading because the unvaccinated and unboosted population base leans so far towards younger demographics, which skews the overall rate significantly. I also didn't specify "adult population" when I mentioned rates of risk, so you can assume I am accounting for all age groups combined. These vast differences in risk by age group are, assumedly, the reason why Greece's vaccine mandate only affected those over 60 years of age. In Canada, we put in place workplace mandates that primarily affected those under 60 (those over 60 do not represent a large proportion of the total workforce)... In contrast to both of these measures, Denmark has stopped recommending boosters to those under 50 without other underlying health conditions.









						Ontario COVID-19 Data Tool | Public Health Ontario
					

Explore confirmed COVID-19 data in Ontario by: case trends over time including hospitalizations and deaths, age and sex, public health unit, outbreaks, laboratory testing and vaccines.




					www.publichealthontario.ca


----------



## brihard (18 Oct 2022)

winds_13 said:


> I am not sure why you think my statement has anything to do with "base rate fallacy", and your accusation does not offer any substantiation to support your slanderous assertion. My statement was based off of the data being provided by the government of Ontario prior to them ceasing to report their data sets in a convenient manner, no longer providing graphs on their website to show incidence by vaccination type, breakdown of hospitalized/ICU cases over time, etc. (you can still access this information, in a less digestible format from Datasets - Ontario Data Catalogue). I do understand statistical analysis perfectly well (I have the postgrad credentials to substantiate this statement).
> 
> My statement was representative of the hospitalization/death rate (not total number as you seemed to have assumed). I even suggested that the likely cause was the difference in vaccination status by age groups, which I will attempt to explain. Ontario has a very high rate of vaccination and, not surprisingly, vaccine and booster uptake is highest amongst the oldest members of the population... The oldest segments of the population are also overwhelming represented in hospitalizations and deaths from COVID19. While those aged over 60 represent relatively small portion of the total population (3.5 million people), and are almost all vaccinated with at least 2 doses, they represent the majority of total deaths and hospitalizations from COVID19 (in Ontario, at least). In contrast, those under 60 represent a much larger portion of the total population (about 11 million people), are overall significantly less vaccinated as a group (particularly when it comes to booster uptake) and represent a minority of total hospitalizations and deaths.
> 
> ...


Yes, precisely- when you compare apples to apples, and make meaningful comparisons within a cohort (eg, compare elderly to elderly, compare youths to youths), the unvaccinated were at much higher risk of death. I didn’t think I would need to clarify that unvaccinated teenagers would likely have better outcomes with COVID than vaccinated 84 year olds, but I’m glad that over the course of five paragraphs you were able to clear that up.


----------



## winds_13 (18 Oct 2022)

brihard said:


> Yes, precisely- when you compare apples to apples, and make meaningful comparisons within a cohort (eg, compare elderly to elderly, compare youths to youths), the unvaccinated were at much higher risk of death. I didn’t think I would need to clarify that unvaccinated teenagers would likely have better outcomes with COVID than vaccinated 84 year olds, but I’m glad that over the course of five paragraphs you were able to clear that up.



You accused my statements of being fabricated and a case of "base rate fallacy", which was incorrect. You even suggested that I was "all fucked up". My original post even alluded to the fact that differences in age vaccine uptake and risk of severe outcomes between age groups was the likely cause of this.

How much do you consider to be "much higher risk" though? And compare this with your statement that there is "slightly higher" numbers of vaccinated people in hospital. With about 95% of those over 80 vaccinated, it has not resulted in a "slightly higher" proportion of total hospitalized cases amongst the unvaccinated, that is outright false. Do you care to provide rescent statistics within this age group to substantiate your statements? Or are you satisfied with arguing your position based off of subjective statements without any regerence to underlying statistics?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Oct 2022)

Do they define Covid death or a Covid related death where Covid was another factor ontop of other factors?


----------



## winds_13 (18 Oct 2022)

brihard said:


> Yes, precisely- when you compare apples to apples, and make meaningful comparisons within a cohort (eg, compare elderly to elderly, compare youths to youths), the unvaccinated were at much higher risk of death. I didn’t think I would need to clarify that unvaccinated teenagers would likely have better outcomes with COVID than vaccinated 84 year olds, but I’m glad that over the course of five paragraphs you were able to clear that up.



Further, now that I have elobarated my statement more, what exactly did you find to be incorrect or misleading about my original post? It was I, after all, that didn't think I needed to explain my comment about how age differences affected the statistics at the population level.

... perhaps you should apologize for being quick to make baseless, slanderous remarks aimed at other posters?


----------



## brihard (18 Oct 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Further, now that I have elobarated my statement more, what exactly did you find to be incorrect or misleading about my original post? It was I, after all, that didn't think I needed to explain my comment about how age differences affected the statistics at the population level.
> 
> ... perhaps you should apologize for being quick to make baseless, slanderous remarks aimed at other posters?


No, I’m good, thanks. While you do credit age cohorts as likely being a major factor, you still made a broad conclusory statement that the unvaccinated were categorically “the lowest risk population for hospitalization and death for about 5 months straight”. Maybe you weren’t being disingenuous, but you were certainly being careless in how you present the data.

Had you presented your variables in reverse, identified that the younger cohorts were the lowest risk, and they they also tended towards lower vaccination rates, which skews perception of respective risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, that would have been fair and accurate. I’m not sure why you presented the information the way you did, but at best it leaves the reader to infer relationships between vaccination status and medical outcomes that are more accurate. My suggestion of you falling victim to base rate fallacy is, quite bluntly, a factor of how crudely you presented that information. I erred in thinking that the way you presented the information must mean you have less of a grasp of statistics than you do.

Keeping this firmly in the context of what was actually being discussed, @McG shared an admittedly simplified data table that showed in general terms the significantly greater per capita incidence of illness, Hospital admissions, and ICU admissions for broad categories of vaccinated versus unvaccinated. You took issue with that, and attempted to present a different conclusion. Your comment about the unvaccinated population being “the lowest risk for hospitalization”, as a counter to McG’s post, can only reasonably be interpreted as you trying to suggest that he was wrong in presenting the greater risk of serious illness that comes with being unvaccinated. I believe you played very fast and loose with how you presented that information. Maybe you were hasty yourself or maybe you chose to present it the way you did to try to lead people to draw certain inferences, I’m not sure.

That’s twice now you’ve dropped the term ‘slanderous’. I’d invite you to reacquaint yourself with what that word actually means, because we are very, very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood here.


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Further, now that I have elobarated my statement more, what exactly did you find to be incorrect or misleading about my original post? It was I, after all, that didn't think I needed to explain my comment about how age differences affected the statistics at the population level.
> 
> ... perhaps you should apologize for being quick to make baseless, slanderous remarks aimed at other posters?


How information is communicated is almost as important as the veracity of the information being communicated; when people cry fowl over "biased media" and "fake news", it's not that anything in the news is actually being fabricated (though some would suggest it is), it's that information is being selectively presented in such away to influence people to draw certain conclusions.

The way you presented your information, combined with the general atmosphere of this thread, would easily lead one (as it did brihard and I) to believe what you were insinuating was something akin to: "Vaccines don't work. Those who are vaccinated actually have worse COVID outcomes."


----------



## winds_13 (18 Oct 2022)

brihard said:


> No, I’m good, thanks. While you do credit age cohorts as likely being a major factor, you still made a broad conclusory statement that the unvaccinated were categorically “the lowest risk population for hospitalization and death for about 5 months straight”. Maybe you weren’t being disingenuous, but you were certainly being careless in how you present the data.
> 
> Had you presented your variables in reverse, identified that the younger cohorts were the lowest risk, and they they also tended towards lower vaccination rates, which skews perception of respective risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, that would have been fair and accurate. I’m not sure why you presented the information the way you did, but at best it leaves the reader to infer relationships between vaccination status and medical outcomes that are more accurate. My suggestion of you falling victim to base rate fallacy is, quite bluntly, a factor of how crudely you presented that information. I erred in thinking that the way you presented the information must mean you have less of a grasp of statistics than you do.
> 
> ...


You ask why I had presented my data in a simplified way, as in using rates at the population level rather than by age cohorts, but then acknowledge that I was responding to McG's use of similarly oversimplified data... Apples to apples. I also took aim at his reference to Ontario's "Science Advisory Table", which I suggested had been misrepresenting data is it did not align well with the data coming out of Public Health Ontario. The Science Advisory Table was also disbanded over a month ago, and the website no longer updated, so _even if_ it was once a trustworthy source of data, this is no longer the case.  My post even stated afterward that "age trends in vaccination likely played a major role"... which I assumed people would understand but apparently not, thus my longer explanation of risk and vaccination uptake by age cohort in the specific province of which we were discussing (Ontario). 

Was my initial statement overly simplistic? Yes. It was not to mislead people though, but rather intended to lead them to question why, if true, this was the case. In response, you outright accused my statements of being false, and made some rather unpleasant remarks on my behalf, however, even though they were not. You also included a diagram taken from Twitter that uses entirely hypothetical hospitalizations rates to try and explain "base rate fallacy"... it even stated that "hospitalization rate is 5x higher in unvaccinated population (50% vs 10%)". Do you think that your use of this graphic was misleading? It presented ratios, for illustration, that are nowhere near representative of actual hospitalization rates for either group. It also did not break risk down by age cohort.

I doubt you have taken objection to posts where people spoke ill of the "unvaccinated" population as a monolithic group without acknowledging the differences in risk between age cohorts. If it is so important to recognize relative risk by age group, do you think that measures such as vaccine mandates and passports should have taken age and other individual risk factors into account (like in Greece)?


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2022)

brihard said:


> That’s twice now you’ve dropped the term ‘slanderous’. I’d invite you to reacquaint yourself with what that word actually means, because we are very, very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood here.



Be interesting to see how it played out in court.


----------



## winds_13 (18 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> How information is communicated is almost as important as the veracity of the information being communicated; when people cry fowl over "biased media" and "fake news", it's not that anything in the news is actually being fabricated (though some would suggest it is), it's that information is being selectively presented in such away to influence people to draw certain conclusions.
> 
> The way you presented your information, combined with the general atmosphere of this thread, would easily lead one (as it did brihard and I) to believe what you were insinuating was something akin to: "Vaccines don't work. Those who are vaccinated actually have worse COVID outcomes."


Well, I even stated in my original post that "age trends in vaccination likely played a major role". If you chose to ignore that piece and consider, or ask, what was meant by it then perhaps you should read more carefully. I agree wholeheartedly in your statements about how information is presented and implore you to take a critical stance on all information that is presented to you, including those that align with your opinion.

I'd argue that data has been purposefully presented on both sides of this debate throughout the pandemic and that if those trying to build confidence in vaccines were not so quick to diminish vaccine risks or acknowledge the vast differences in outcomes between age cohorts, then they may have done a better job of convincing the vaccine hesitant on the importance of vaccination, particularly in the most at risk populations. It seems, to me at least, that now many people are claiming the vaccines were never intended to prevent risk of transmission... but if you go back a year ago, that was the main argument put forth in favor of vaccine mandates and passports. It was not about people being concerned that 20 year olds were at significant risk of being hospitalized if they were unvaccinated. Rather, it appeared that people were afraid unvaccinated individuals were putting vaccinated individuals at increased risk of transmitting COVID19, to the extent that they wanted to deny them participation in society. There was a lot of vitriol and hate being spouted off about the "selfish" unvaccinated segment of the population. Few thought to speak up when unvaccinated 28 year old public servants, who worked entirely from home, were being put on leave without pay and denied EI... and those that did were dismissed as "anti-vaxxers". Many were quick to defend the repression of Canadian's Charter Rights, arguing that such measures met the threshold of "reasonable" and that "rights come with responsibilities"... but aren't human rights supposed to be universal? Now we are to decide who deserves to have their human rights respected? What an illiberal concept.

Where was the instance on considering risk of hospitalization by age group a year ago? I've never claimed anything along the lines of "vaccines don't work", people seem to assume that there are only two camps though, and one is either on one side of the fence or the other... I'm afraid that, as a population, we are losing our capacity for nuance.


----------



## brihard (18 Oct 2022)

winds_13 said:


> You ask why I had presented my data in a simplified way, as in using rates at the population level rather than by age cohorts, but then acknowledge that I was responding to McG's use of similarly oversimplified data... Apples to apples. I also took aim at his reference to Ontario's "Science Advisory Table", which I suggested had been misrepresenting data is it did not align well with the data coming out of Public Health Ontario. The Science Advisory Table was also disbanded over a month ago, and the website no longer updated, so _even if_ it was once a trustworthy source of data, this is no longer the case.  My post even stated afterward that "age trends in vaccination likely played a major role"... which I assumed people would understand but apparently not, thus my longer explanation of risk and vaccination uptake by age cohort in the specific province of which we were discussing (Ontario).
> 
> Was my initial statement overly simplistic? Yes. It was not to mislead people though, but rather intended to lead them to question why, if true, this was the case. In response, you outright accused my statements of being false, and made some rather unpleasant remarks on my behalf, however, even though they were not. You also included a diagram taken from Twitter that uses entirely hypothetical hospitalizations rates to try and explain "base rate fallacy"... it even stated that "hospitalization rate is 5x higher in unvaccinated population (50% vs 10%)". Do you think that your use of this graphic was misleading? It presented ratios, for illustration, that are nowhere near representative of actual hospitalization rates for either group. It also did not break risk down by age cohort.
> 
> I doubt you have taken objection to posts where people spoke ill of the "unvaccinated" population as a monolithic group without acknowledging the differences in risk between age cohorts. If it is so important to recognize relative risk by age group, do you think that measures such as vaccine mandates and passports should have taken age and other individual risk factors into account (like in Greece)?


I was rude, and I’ll apologize for that without qualification. My tone was inappropriate, sorry.

I apparently was reading what you were saying very differently from how you intended to present it. I still have some disagreements and was going to say more but I’ve just had something else come up and the conversation will likely have moved on. Regardless of whether I get caught on the rest, please accept my apology for how I approached this.


----------



## QV (18 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> "Vaccines don't work. Those who are vaccinated actually have worse COVID outcomes."


That's not at all what I got out of that.


----------



## winds_13 (18 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> Be interesting to see how it played out in court.


Perhaps I overlooked this quip. Let's see, when I look up "slander", I get the two following definitions:

"a false spoken statement intended to damage the good opinion people have of somebody; the legal offence of making this kind of statement"

Given that the statement was made online and thus semi-permanent, perhaps it is more accurate to label it as "libelous". Although it is not that part of the definition that brihard has issue with, but rather insists that his statements were "very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood".

Well, my initial statements have been somewhat acknowledged as being true. His initial reaction to it was: 


> Uhh… What are you smoking? Unvaccinated people were a grossly disproportionate source of deaths and serious illness. I suspect you’re getting all fucked up from seeing slightly more vaccinated than unvaccinated people hospitalized, but with over 85% of the population vaccinated. Classic base rate fallacy.


Whether this counts as defamation is debatable. 

I see that he has now apologized for this comment, which I wholeheartedly accept.


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2022)

winds_13 said:


> Whether this counts as defamation is debatable.


Wouldn't know. The extent of my legal education was watching Matlock.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Oct 2022)

mariomike said:


> Wouldn't know. The extent of my legal education was watching Matlock.


I always preferred "Murder She Wrote" myself 😁



winds_13 said:


> Perhaps I overlooked this quip. Let's see, when I look up "slander", I get the two following definitions:
> 
> "a false spoken statement intended to damage the good opinion people have of somebody; the legal offence of making this kind of statement"
> 
> ...


Jesus dude, lets go easy on throwing around words like libel and slander.  It detracts from your argument.


----------



## kev994 (18 Oct 2022)

Lumber said:


> And then he called for an inquiry on his use of the EA.
> 
> The last one should be the most telling piece; instead of waiting for the uproar from his opponents to reach an untenable fever-pitch and caving to their demands for accountability, he initiated it himself instead of trying (fruitless as it may have been) to avoid accountability.


The inquiry is a mandatory, baked-in part of the act. Invoking the EA made the inquiry necessary, whether the PM called it or not.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Dec 2022)

> ​
> A SCIENTIST who worked closely with the Wuhan lab has claimed Covid was genetically engineered - and leaked from the facility.
> Dr Andrew Huff, former vice president of EcoHealth Alliance, claims to have had a ringside seat to what he brands one of the greatest cover-ups in history - and the "biggest US intelligence failure since 9/11".





> I worked with the Wuhan lab - this is how I KNOW Covid was a lab leak
> 
> 
> A SCIENTIST who worked closely with the Wuhan lab has claimed Covid was genetically engineered – and leaked from the facility. Dr Andrew Huff, former vice president of EcoHealth Alliance, cla…
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Dec 2022)

Maybe Dr. Huff is just trying to sell his book.


----------



## dapaterson (Sunday at 23:50)

COVID may significantly impair male fertility.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1612104517264318465


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (Sunday at 23:54)

I'll bet sperms counts are lower for any male recovering from a sickness....


----------



## PuckChaser (Sunday at 23:57)

Sorry, hard to take a scientific tweet seriously when it says #GetBoosted despite mounting evidence that the boosters are useless.


----------



## Quirky (Monday at 00:09)

Excess weight may affect sperm production, reduce fertility in men
					

A new study co-authored by Jorge Chavarro, assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), finds that overweight and obese men are more likely than thei…




					www.hsph.harvard.edu
				






> They found that overweight men were 11 percent more likely to have a low sperm count and 39 percent more likely to have no sperm in their ejaculate. Obese men were 42 percent more likely to have a low sperm count than their normal-weight peers and 81 percent more likely to produce no sperm.



#exercise
#dontbefat

Fitting this being a CAF Covid thread.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (Monday at 01:37)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I'll bet sperms counts are lower for any male recovering from a sickness....



. . . "sperm count is considered lower than normal if you have *fewer than 15 million sperm per milliliter of semen*" . . .  (_thankfully, one doesn't have to count all of them individually when doing the test_)

Sperm count can be low due to a long list of factors.









						Low sperm count - Symptoms and causes
					






					www.mayoclinic.org
				





> Medical causes​Low sperm count can be caused by a number of health issues and medical treatments. Some of these include:
> 
> *Varicocele.* A varicocele (VAR-ih-koe-seel) is a swelling of the veins that drain the testicle. It's the most common reversible cause of male infertility. Although the exact reason that varicoceles cause infertility is unknown, it might be related to abnormal testicular temperature regulation. Varicoceles result in reduced quality of the sperm.
> *Infection.* Some infections can interfere with sperm production or sperm health or can cause scarring that blocks the passage of sperm. These include inflammation of the epididymis (epididymitis) or testicles (orchitis) and some sexually transmitted infections, including gonorrhea or HIV. Although some infections can result in permanent testicular damage, most often sperm can still be retrieved.
> ...


----------



## winds_13 (Monday at 09:50)

Quirky said:


> Excess weight may affect sperm production, reduce fertility in men
> 
> 
> A new study co-authored by Jorge Chavarro, assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), finds that overweight and obese men are more likely than thei…
> ...


Perhaps even more relevant to this thread is that obesity has long been known to be associated with significantly increased risk of hospitalization after being infected with COVID19. This was no surprise to anyone, though, as being overweight/obese lowers people's immunity in general and makes them prone to all sorts of health issues... of course, health authorities have avoided recommending for the general public to look after their health by promoting things like exercise, eating healthy, reducing consumption of alcohol, and losing weight. Rather, the messaging for a long time was "stay home, stay safe", which lead the waist lines of many to expand.









						Why COVID-19 is more deadly in people with obesity—even if they're young
					

“The stickiest blood I’ve ever seen” and other weight-related factors worsen the coronavirus disease




					www.science.org
				




Also, as PuckChaser pointed out, the currently available vaccines have largely proven ineffective at preventing infection and transmission, so how would getting "boosted" potentially provide a male with a lowered risk of reduced sperm count?


----------



## Halifax Tar (Monday at 10:41)

winds_13 said:


> Perhaps even more relevant to this thread is that obesity has long been known to be associated with significantly increased risk of hospitalization after being infected with COVID19. This was no surprise to anyone, though, as being overweight/obese lowers people's immunity in general and makes them prone to all sorts of health issues... of course, health authorities have avoided recommending for the general public to look after their health by promoting things like exercise, eating healthy, reducing consumption of alcohol, and losing weight. Rather, the messaging for a long time was "stay home, stay safe", which lead the waist lines of many to expand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you attacking my sense of body positivity!  Don't you know fitness and working out are facets of toxic masculinity and fascism ?


----------



## QV (Monday at 11:29)

Halifax Tar said:


> Are you attacking my sense of body positivity!  Don't you know fitness and working out are facets of toxic masculinity and fascism ?



You know... it's all so absurd you have to wonder if this all isn't just one of our adversary countries who have completely infiltrated all aspects of our society to perpetuate the decline of western society by talking us into all of this crazy shit by using our own rules (weaknesses to them) against us... I'm sure there is no country in the world that would pursue long term aims like that... or no country in the world that has managed to get tentacles in practically every industry and field...


----------



## daftandbarmy (Monday at 12:53)

QV said:


> You know... it's all so absurd you have to wonder if this all isn't just one of our adversary countries who have completely infiltrated all aspects of our society to perpetuate the decline of western society by talking us into all of this crazy shit by using our own rules (weaknesses to them) against us... I'm sure there is no country in the world that would pursue long term aims like that... or no country in the world that has managed to get tentacles in practically every industry and field...



Of course, once you map it out it all makes sense


----------



## OldSolduer (Monday at 12:59)

Halifax Tar said:


> Are you attacking my sense of body positivity!  Don't you know fitness and working out are facets of toxic masculinity and fascism ?


When captured German soldiers were given medical examinations by the Allies it was noted that Germans - the SS in particular- were bigger, fit and health issues were minimal.

Physical and mental fitness are a national security matter as well as a health issue.


----------



## Lumber (Monday at 13:12)

PuckChaser said:


> Sorry, hard to take a scientific tweet seriously when it says #GetBoosted despite mounting evidence that the boosters are useless.


Useless, you say? I haven't seen a single study, article, or report anywhere that claims that the boosters are _useless. _Less effective that the original shots, maybe, but certainly not _useless. _Is that just hyperbole on your part, or are you getting your info from FJ's national enquirer articles?

Anyways, here's how usefull they are:



> In mid-December, the CDC put out new data from two studies that suggest the bivalent boosters offer significant protection against illness and hospitalization. In the first study, 798 patients ages 65 and up received one dose of a bivalent booster in addition to at least two doses of the original, monovalent vaccines. Those who received the bivalent vaccine were 84% less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than those who were unvaccinated and 73% less likely to be hospitalized than those who received two or more doses of the monovalent vaccine.
> 
> In the second study, adults 18 and older who received a bivalent booster were 57% less likely to seek care at an emergency department or urgent care clinic compared to those who were unvaccinated



So, still _very effective _for those 65 and older, and still, what I would say, quite effective for those under 65. Wouldn't YOU want something that would reduce by 50% your chance of experiencing serious illness?


----------



## Quirky (Monday at 13:44)

OldSolduer said:


> Physical and mental fitness are a national security matter as well as a health issue



Doesn't seem like it with the decline in the CAF physical fitness standards. The FORCE test is a joke. 



winds_13 said:


> of course, health authorities have avoided recommending for the general public to look after their health by promoting things like exercise, eating healthy, reducing consumption of alcohol, and losing weight. Rather, the messaging for a long time was "stay home, stay safe", which lead the waist lines of many to expand.



There is a lot of money to be made in treating obesity and all the health issues that go along with it. Trillions, likely.


----------



## OldSolduer (Monday at 15:56)

Quirky said:


> There is a lot of money to be made in treating obesity and all the health issues that go along with it. Trillions, likely.


An old saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Yes there is beaucoup dollars to be made in the "health care" and "fitness" industries.


----------



## daftandbarmy (Tuesday at 02:21)

OldSolduer said:


> An old saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Yes there is beaucoup dollars to be made in the "health care" and "fitness" industries.



Biometrics might be the wave of the future... viz:

Could wearable devices save police officers' lives and careers?​If supervisors could see an officer’s biometric response in real-time during high-stress calls such as a traffic stop or pursuit, intervention could occur without delay

One indicator of the likely growth of wearables is economic. By current estimates, in the next 25 years, we should see wearable technology prosper at a global cost savings of about $200 billion in the health care sector. [5] This cost savings is not only for the end-user patients. Operating costs for hospitals are expected to be reduced by 16% in the next five years due to wearable technology. [5]

The next generation of the workforce values an organization's commitment to professional development and technology. [11] The expansion of wellness programs to include fitness and nutrition considerations aligns with this trend and highlights the prioritization of overall health for police officers to do the job. Given as much as 20% of the population already use smartwatches and similar fitness devices [4], the future generation of police officers will value staying informed and managing their personal health and wellbeing. The trend of wearables could not only address your fitness but could even go so far as to tell you how to be a better-trained police officer.











						Could wearable devices save police officers' lives and careers?
					

If supervisors could see an officer’s biometric response in real-time during high-stress calls such as a traffic stop or pursuit, intervention could occur without delay




					www.police1.com


----------



## Eaglelord17 (Tuesday at 10:04)

Quirky said:


> Doesn't seem like it with the decline in the CAF physical fitness standards. The FORCE test is a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of money to be made in treating obesity and all the health issues that go along with it. Trillions, likely.


Its not just a decline in CAF standards its a decline in Canadian fitness in general. I have witnessed 16 year old male potential recruits fail the Force test (and not at the sandbag drag part).

Considering I am not in the best of shape myself (don’t work out, do a bit of strength work with my job, but otherwise next to no cardio in my life) and I purposely go as slow as possible on the test to prove a point and still pass with ease, it is scary where our society is heading.


OldSolduer said:


> When captured German soldiers were given medical examinations by the Allies it was noted that Germans - the SS in particular- were bigger, fit and health issues were minimal.
> 
> Physical and mental fitness are a national security matter as well as a health issue.


That was one thing the Fascists had figured out, physical fitness was a big thing for them. Instead the West has basically given up with ‘body positivity’ becoming the replacement for physical fitness.


----------



## mariomike (Tuesday at 10:44)

Eaglelord17 said:


> That was one thing the Fascists had figured out, physical fitness was a big thing for them.



Perhaps mandatory physical and military training was more common back then.

For example, America drafted men between 1940 and 1973. They even got Elvis!

Not to suggest one generation was greater than another, or if the draft was a good idea, or not.

But, at least the military had men available who were reasonably healthy and fit, with basic military and trade training who might not have joined otherwise.

As mentioned,



OldSolduer said:


> Physical and mental fitness are a national security matter as well as a health issue.


----------



## Navy_Pete (Tuesday at 12:53)

I don't think it's really rocket science; we shifted from the industrial age to the information age and a lot of people no longer do physical labour outside of planned exercise. Farm kids that don't go to the gym will still be pretty fit, and anyone with a physical labour job will be physically fit (but maybe beat up). Best shape I was ever in was when I spent my summer landscaping and playing rugby.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (Tuesday at 14:51)

Eaglelord17 said:


> That was one thing the Fascists had figured out, physical fitness was a big thing for them.



And they still lost the war.  Go figure.


----------

