All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

[OldSolduer]

I am saying that you have a choice, and with that choice comes consequences

I tend to agree we all have choices and yes choices come with consequences good or bad.

 

[Altair]

A person can choose to not get vaccinated, but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.


I am arguing some of those risks include hassles at the border (i.e. quarantine until negative test). Or, employers mandating masks or working from home, or otherwise altering working environments.

There will always be a discussion about balancing the individual rights vs social responsibility.

That's all I'm attempting to express. Perhaps clumsily.

It's very clumsy.

And a slippery slope.

I personally detest smokers.

I do not appreciate cancer sticks.

People who smoke are a net drain on society and a burden on our health care system.

Should we as a society be talking about balancing individuals rights versus collective good in the case of smokers?

 

[Mick]

It's very clumsy.

And a slippery slope.

I personally detest smokers.

I do not appreciate cancer sticks.

People who smoke are a net drain on society and a burden on our health care system.

Should we as a society be talking about balancing individuals rights versus collective good in the case of smokers?

Maybe we should make them smoke outside. And refrain from smoking in the workplace. And airports.

Slippery slope indeed.

 

[Good2Golf]

Forced medical procedures are not part of being in any free society.

Good Lord, already. The Charter is clear, and no one (above 12 for now) is being forced to get vaccinated. You insinuation that Canada is forcing vaccinations directly like some sterilization program is ludicrous. Are there second order effects that may limit how an individual interacts in society? Yes. Don’t want to get a driver’s license? Don’t drive. Don’t want to buy a gun? Don’t get a PAL. How far down the Freeman spectrum of ‘you can’t tell me what to do!!!’ do you want to go? The Charter says there are reasonable limits to one’s rights and freedoms, to wit:

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.

The Charter protects those basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians that are considered essential to preserving Canada as a free and democratic country. It applies to all governments – federal, provincial and territorial – and includes protection of the following:

• fundamental freedoms, democratic rights
• the right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada
• legal rights (life, liberty and personal security)
• equality rights for all
• the official languages of Canada
• minority language education rights
• Canada's multicultural heritage
• Indigenous peoples’ rights

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or child pornography.

Enacting limitations deemed appropriate for the health of all citizens does not cause the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to explode…

 

[Altair]

Maybe we should make them smoke outside. And refrain from smoking in the workplace. And airports.

Slippery slope indeed.

Yes, why stop there?

Smokers cannot work certain jobs?

Smokers are banned from certain establishments?

Sounds odd, does it not?

I'm never for letting businesses or governments legislate rights away from people.

Probably because can remember stories about certain people needing to sit at the back of the bus, or drink from the colored fountains, based on the popular opinion at the time.

 

[Good2Golf]

Probably because can remember stories about certain people needing to sit at the back of the bus, or drink from the colored fountains, based on the popular opinion at the time.

Well…at least you didn’t invoke Godwin’s Law…

 

[Mick]

Yes, why stop there?

Smokers cannot work certain jobs?

Smokers are banned from certain establishments?

Sounds odd, does it not?

I'm never for letting businesses or governments legislate rights away from people.

Probably because can remember stories about certain people needing to sit at the back of the bus, or drink from the colored fountains, based on the popular opinion at the time.

Uhhh...we did stop there.

You could make the same hysterical argument about any single restriction in society. Go nuts.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Isn't the whole point of a society a collection of people who work together for the common good?
Is it reasonable that some members of the group do not work towards the common good, yet reap the rewards?
Shouldn't action, or inaction have consequences?

Or: the whole point of a society is to have just enough rules to allow each person to live his own life. There are many examples of reward without contribution (eg. publicly-funded health insurance). Where would the line for getting what one deserves be drawn? "He chose to start doing drugs and progressed until he OD'ed on the street. Let him be; if he dies right there, it's consequences."

If we're going to start imposing consequences, let's start a list:

• people who smoke
• people who over-consume (food, alcohol, recreational pharmaceuticals)
• people who go off the trails in the back country
• people who indulge in activities with potentially highly adverse outcomes
• vehicles that are too noisy
• vehicles that can do more than 20km/h over the highest posted limit
• people who can't produce enough to pay for where they choose to live
• people who build things where insurance companies won't cover them
• people who create obligations they can't meet

Etc. I'm sure after everyone is done contributing, it won't be short.


"As a society" we've come to the point of indemnifying people against most risks, including foolish known likely ones. We tolerate a lot of shit which annoys us, because it's someone else's pasttime. My default position is opposition to any notion that we should start squeezing in exceptions.

At the root of this business of vaccinations is privacy. Privacy is essential for liberty. Take a few minutes to try to remember the long, long list of things each person might cherish that is fundamentally protected by an argument starting with "privacy".

It took only a few months to publicize COVID and its risks. It took years for HIV to enter common discourse, there was always an undercurrent of worry that it would evolve to become more easily transmissible, and it was approximately a death sentence. Yet we managed to avoid imposing scarlet letters. If we were dealing with a haemorrhagic fever I'd feel differently, but we're not.

 

[Loachman]

Good Lord, already. The Charter is clear, and no one (above 12 for now) is being forced to get vaccinated. You insinuation that Canada is forcing vaccinations directly like some sterilization program is ludicrous.

So in that case I left out "or coerced/pressured".

When "personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population", ie limitations to hitherto normal activities, are invoked, that is, at a minimum, coercion/pressure and creates a two-tiered society.

If vaccinations work, then the vaccinated have no reason to fear the unvaccinated, and the unvaccinated can freely go about their business using whatever alternative protective measures that they care to adopt (or not).

 

[Altair]

Uhhh...we did stop there.

You could make the same hysterical argument about any single restriction in society. Go nuts.

You know what, that's fair.

Currently 2 provinces are doing vaccine passports, and one of those, Quebec, has said they won't be a used as a requirement for employment.

The Feds (Trudeau) have come out against it.( in a domestic sense)

So the only ones making inane arguments for some sort of societal restrictions based on vaccine status are people like you.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I recall getting a seasonal flu vaccine, once, only because it was offered free at work.

Every two or three years I've gotten a flu. It's possible I've been part of a chain of contagion that eventually killed someone.

So this isn't an on/off question, and the risks of COVID are insufficient to justify discrimination.

 

[Altair]

I recall getting a seasonal flu vaccine, once, only because it was offered free at work.

Every two or three years I've gotten a flu. It's possible I've been part of a chain of contagion that eventually killed someone.

So this isn't an on/off question, and the risks of COVID are insufficient to justify discrimination.

Especially since there are other easy ways to keep people safe at this point.

Step one. Get as many people vaccinated by non coercive means. Hell, bribe them.

Step two. Rapid testing. Cheap, quick rapid tests can check to see if everyone entering a place has covid. Do everyone. Vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you passed your rapid test for the day you should be good to go. If you didn't, vaccinated or unvaccinated, go home.

There. Solved the problem.

 

[Mick]

You know what, that's fair.

Currently 2 provinces are doing vaccine passports, and one of those, Quebec, has said they won't be a used as a requirement for employment.

The Feds (Trudeau) have come out against it.( in a domestic sense)

So the only ones making inane arguments for some sort of societal restrictions based on vaccine status are people like you.

Nope. Merely saying that decisions have consequences.

 

[Altair]

Nope. Merely saying that decisions have consequences.

Currently the unvaccinated cannot travel internationally to certain places.

Domestically the unvaccinated are facing restrictions in only Manitoba and Quebec, and in Quebec it is only if cases rise, and not to be used in cases of employment.

So yes, decisions have consequences, but a great deal less than what you seemed to be suggesting.

 

[mariomike]

Well…at least you didn’t invoke Godwin’s Law…

View attachment 65838
How far down the Freeman spectrum of ‘you can’t tell me what to do!!!’ do you want to go?

I'm sure you are kidding - I think? But, from reading this discussion, I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Mick]

Currently the unvaccinated cannot travel internationally to certain places.

Domestically the unvaccinated are facing restrictions in only Manitoba and Quebec, and in Quebec it is only if cases rise, and not to be used in cases of employment.

So yes, decisions have consequences, but a great deal less than what you seemed to be suggesting.

I believe I cited travel explicitly.

And unvaccinated people can most certainly travel, but they will be required to quarantine upon return. For now.

 

[Altair]

I believe I cited travel explicitly.

And unvaccinated people can most certainly travel, but they will be required to quarantine upon return. For now.

You didn't

A person can choose to not get vaccinated, but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.

I am arguing some of those risks include hassles at the border (i.e. quarantine until negative test). Or, employers mandating masks or working from home, or otherwise altering working environments

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm sure you are kidding - I think? But, from reading this discussion, I was wondering the same thing.

No I wasn’t kidding, actually. There was already a specious link being formed between vaccination and a return segregation…no knowing how ludicrously things might devolve…

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Getting a lot of 'personal freedoms' and 'right to chose' feedback from folks who cut their hair the exact way they were told to for a long time or face consequences............its not the same thing and yet it is the same thing. With certain choices come certain consequences.

You didn't have to get a haircut for the change of command parade......

 

[Loachman]

The long-term effects of haircuts are reasonably well known.