• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,358
Points
1,260
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Anglosphere ....
A man was vaccinated against Covid-19 up to 10 times in one day on behalf of other people, prompting an investigation by the Ministry of Health.

It is believed the man, who is understood to have visited several vaccination centres, was paid for the jabs.

In response to questions from Stuff, Astrid Koornneef, the Ministry of Health’s Covid-19 vaccine and immunisation programme group manager, said the ministry was “aware of the issue” ...
... and in Italy
A 50-year-old man tried to pass off a silicone arm as his own at a COVID-19 vaccination clinic in northern Italy in an attempt to get a vaccine certification without actually getting vaccinated.

The nurse, Filippa Bua, realized noticed something odd about the arm.

“The color of the skin was anomalous, much lighter compared to the hands or the face of the patient,” she told CNN.

After inspecting the area, she realized it was a fake silicone arm ...
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
84
Points
450
Well, it appears that large outbreaks are becoming more common in workplaces that have a 100% vaccination rate, having already laid off their unvaccinated staff for posing undue risk to the workplace.



And from a different news agency... of note, CTV News makes no mention that the outbreaks are entirely amongst fully vaccinated staff. I guess they didn't consider that facet to be news worthy. However, they do specify that one of the outbreaks currently involves 32 positive cases, which the Sun did not.

 
Last edited:

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
668
Points
1,260
Well, it appears that large outbreaks are becoming more common in workplaces that have a 100% vaccination rate, having already laid off their unvaccinated staff for posing undue risk to the workplace.



And from a different news agency... of note, CTV News makes no mention that the outbreaks are entirely amongst fully vaccinated staff. I guess they didn't consider that facet to be news worthy. However, they do specify that one of the outbreaks currently involves 32 positive cases, which the Sun did not.


Regarding the stories you posted about Toronto emergency services.

I don't think I have read a defintion of anti-vaxxer in any of our Covid discussions, so I looked it up in the dictionary,

Definition of anti-vaxxer

: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination

Any vaccine hesitant paramedics and firefighters have been suspended since October 31.

The deadline for dismissal was extended from today - Dec. 13 - to Jan. 3, 2022.
However, the extension only applies to members who have already had their first dose, and can provide proof of an appointment to receive their second shot before 3 Jan.

I have not read of any increase in 9-1-1 response times in the city since 31 Oct.

I think most people with a background in emergency services understand the city mandate.

So he gets infected - from whatever source - and takes his whole crew out of service. How is that public safety? Perhaps a relatively healthy person could survive being medically treated by an infected firefighter or paramedic, but could a medically compromised one? The employer (city) owns the liability.


 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,010
100% vaccinated is -resistant, not -proof. Original effectiveness estimates were in range 50-90%, and effectiveness does not indefinitely remain at highest level.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
84
Points
450
mariomike, I am certainly pro-vaccine, but to say that anyone who opposes a vaccine mandates is an "anti-vaxxer" seems like quite a stretch. Merriam-Webster has made modifications to their definitions of both "vaccine" and "anti-vaxxer" since the start of the pandemic, making each more broad in scope... BTW, this is the dictionary that added words like "amirite" , "vacay", and "fabulosity" in recent years.

If I type "definition of anti-vaxxer" into a Google search, it provides the definition from the Oxford dictionary (it is not just the first hit, it is the dictionary endorsed by Google):

"a person who is opposed to vaccination, typically a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child."


Perhaps you use a different search engine than most of us, or decided to scroll through definitions until you found one that fits your personal opinion? Do you consider someone that is pro-vaccine but anti-mandate to be an anti-vaxxer? Does this make the Pope an anti-vaxxer because although he has recommended his followers to get vaccinated, referring to it as an "act of love", he has also stated that "vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary".


Is there a reasonable limit to this universal support for mandates and their enforcement? Most of our country has already determined that collective well-being trumps charter protected human rights, regardless of the risk posed (ie. whether the person works 100% remotely or not). There are countries that are making it illegal to be unvaccinated, what is the appropriate limit on enforcement... fines, imprisonment, capitol punishment? Most Canadians never get the annual flu shot, does that make them an anti-vaxxer? If the government extends their COVID-19 mandate to include annual flu shots, with imprisonment as the means of enforcement, would you support this? If not, are you an anti-vaxxer?

I posted the articles about outbreaks amongst fully vaccinated workforces to highlight the risk that fully vaccinated individuals continue to pose for spread of COVID-19, highlighting the need to maintain masking, distancing, and other preventive measures. The Public Health Agency of Canada recently updated its guidelines on mask wearing, in recognition that airborne virus transmission is much more prevalent than previously thought (Dr.Tam compared it to the spread of second-hand smoke). Have these workplaces with hardline vaccine mandates started procuring ventilators for their staff, particular for those that interact with the public, including those particularly vulnerable to severe outcomes from the virus?

 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
668
Points
1,260
Merriam-Webster has made modifications to their definitions of both "vaccine" and "anti-vaxxer" since the start of the pandemic, making each more broad in scope...

No, Merriam-Webster didn’t change the definition of ‘anti-vaxxer’​

  • Peter Sokolowski, editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com, said that the entry for “anti-vaxxer” was first added to the online dictionary in February 2018 and hasn’t been revised or changed since. It has always defined it as “a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination.”
  • Archived web pages show that the definition has been consistent since 2018.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
84
Points
450
mariomike, the definition provided in the article you just posted, "a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination" is not even the same as the definition that you previously provided, "a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccinations". I stated that Merriam-Webster had modified their definition to be more broad, it did this mainly by replacing "laws" with "regulations". The definition has changed since May, 2021 when the article that you posted was written.

 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
704
Points
1,060
100% vaccinated is -resistant, not -proof. Original effectiveness estimates were in range 50-90%, and effectiveness does not indefinitely remain at highest level.
This second point about efficacy reducing over time kinda puts this in perspective; emergency services were among the first to get jabbed so they ought to be the first to show the effects of decreasing efficacy.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
668
Points
1,260
If the government extends their COVID-19 mandate to include annual flu shots, with imprisonment as the means of enforcement, would you support this?
Wind, you posted three stories about Toronto emergency services. Two were from Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun. That is all I commented on.

Annual flu shots? Sure, I know about that. Ontario provincial regulation required paramedics to get annual flu shots or give up their jobs.
The law, an amendment to the Ontario Ambulance Act, took effect in fall 2000.

So, I got the flu shot.



I guess this can go back and forth all day.

December 8, 2021

The Associated Press


CLAIM: Merriam-Webster changed the definition of anti-vaxxer to now include those who oppose “regulations mandating vaccination.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing Context. Merriam-Webster’s anti-vaxxer listing already included language similar to the clause being cited online, but the wording was changed to “regulations” rather than “laws.”

THE FACTS: Posts circulating widely on social media claim Merriam-Webster changed the definition of “anti-vaxxer” to include those who oppose “regulations mandating vaccination.” But the posts don’t explain that the previous entry used a similar definition.

This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,080
Points
1,110
This second point about efficacy reducing over time kinda puts this in perspective; emergency services were among the first to get jabbed so they ought to be the first to show the effects of decreasing efficacy.
Yup. I’m already pst six months but not quite yet eligible for a booster.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
84
Points
450
mariomike, I posted recent articles about significant outbreaks in Canadian workplaces after they had enforced hardline vaccine mandates. That they were Toronto emergency services wasn't specifically relevant to my particular point, rather it was on the perceived effectiveness of the vaccine several months after vaccination. I provided 2 different news sources for the same story to highlight the difference in reporting by different news outlets. Are you claiming that anything reported by Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun was innaccurate or misrepresented?

Regarding the stories you posted about Toronto emergency services.

I don't think I have read a defintion of anti-vaxxer in any of our Covid discussions, so I looked it up in the dictionary,

Definition of anti-vaxxer

: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination

You responded to my post by providing a non-universally excepted definition of "anti-vaxxer", from Merriam-Webster. I responded by questioning the definition and if there was a limit to the scope or enforcement of such mandates that you would not support, making you an "anti-vaxxer" according to the definition you provided, or if your support is without such a limit. You then tried to state that I had made a false statement by posting outdated, inaccurate information. Was trying to paint me with a derogatory title (using large, bolded font for emphasis), using a hand-picked definition, not the main purpose of your comment?

I brought up extending these mandates to flu shots because these mandates are not just for the Toronto emergency services or the CAF. Of course there are arguments for frontline workers, and CAF members, to be held to higher medical standards than the general population. However, the government is restricting freedoms of individuals based off of their medical decisions and recommending that all employers universally create their own vaccine mandates, firing those that don't comply so that they are unable from applying for EI. There is also a "vaccine passport" system in place in Ontario, what if this system was to be extended indefinitely and include things such as flu vaccination status?

What are the reasons for not including provisions for regular testing for unvaccinated employees, is it the cost/logistical burden or is it some other reason? What about the protection of basic human rights (ex. right to mobility, right to bodily autonomy), does the pandemic justify throwing them out the window, even if employees work entirely from home?

If the intent of the workplace mandates and passport systems is to protect unvaccinated employees/citizens, who have a higher chance of being hospitalized with severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection, and prevent them from using up hospital bed spaces, why not extend them to all individuals with a higher risk of severe outcomes, whether due to age, medical condition, etc.? If it is the elderly that are primarily being hospitalized with COVID-19, why not prevent them from dining in restaurants, attending indoor events, or travelling? It would appear that those with weakened immune systems are not only more susceptible to severe outcomes of the virus but also do not create as strong an antibody response to vaccination. According to the CDC, it would seem a vaccinated individual in their 60s, 70s or 80s is at significantly higher risk of hospitalization and death (from COVID-19) than someone in their 20s, this gap doesn't close if the younger person isn't vaccinated.

 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
668
Points
1,260

Was trying to paint me with a derogatory title (using large, bolded font for emphasis), using a hand-picked definition, not the main purpose of your comment?
No.

It was a copy/paste. That's the way it came out.

Wind, nobody brought up "what is the appropriate limit on enforcement... fines, imprisonment, capitol punishment?". Except you.

You also posted three stories about the City of Toronto vaccination mandate.

Write a letter to the mayor if you think it is unfair.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
84
Points
450
mariomike, I'm not sure what "back and forth" you think there is on whether or not Merriam-Webster's definition of "anti-vaxxer" changed recently to broaden the scope from "opposing laws" to "opposing regulations", it did. You outright posted inaccurate, outdated information to try and claim that I had posted something false. Your additional quotes, from the article that I posted, missed the obvious one:

"The word 'regulations' is indeed new to the entry, but the old definition similarly included individuals who were against legal vaccine mandates."

No.

It was a copy/paste.

That's the way it came out.

Is it just the use of over-sized bold font that was the result of copy/paste? What about the part where I stated that you wanted to paint me with a derogatory title, is that not accurate?

Nobody brought up "fines, imprisonment, capitol punishment?" Except you.

Yes, I did so in order to highlight my question about whether you have any limits to your support of regulations mandating vaccines (from the definition you provided). If you do have any limits to what you would support (for example, if there is some sort of limit on how you think they should be enforced), then you would logically fit Merriam-Webster's definition of anti-vaxxer.

Austria is already planning to fine individuals, 3,600 euros every three months, in enforcement of their vaccine mandate. Is this something that you support? Would you support stricter measures if this does not convince more people to get vaccinated.

 
Last edited:

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,629
Points
1,090
mariomike, I'm not sure what "back and forth" you think there is on whether or not Merriam-Webster's definition of "anti-vaxxer" changed recently to broaden the scope from "opposing laws" to "opposing regulations", it did. You outright posted inaccurate, outdated information to try and claim that I had posted something false. Your additional quotes, from the article that I posted, missed the obvious one:

"The word 'regulations' is indeed new to the entry, but the old definition similarly included individuals who were against legal vaccine mandates."



Is it just the use of over-sized bold font that was the result of copy/paste? What about the part where I stated that you wanted to paint me with a derogatory title, is that not accurate?



Yes, I did so in order to highlight my question about whether you have any limits to your support of regulations mandating vaccines (from the definition you provided). If you do have any limits to what you would support (for example, if there is some sort of limit on how you think they should be enforced), then you would logically fit Merriam-Webster's definition of anti-vaxxer.

Austria is already planning to fine individuals, 3,600 euros every three months, in enforcement of their vaccine mandate. Is this something that you support? Would you support stricter measures if this does not convince more people to get vaccinated.

Austria’s vaccination is one of the lower ones in the EU. Ours is somewhat higher. Austria will do what Austria feels is best for Austria.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
84
Points
450
Austria’s vaccination is one of the lower ones in the EU. Ours is somewhat higher. Austria will do what Austria feels is best for Austria.
Remius, so you support Austria's decision? Would you support a similar decision in Canada at our current vaccination rate? If not, at what vaccination rate do you consider such a mandate to be justified?

In Canada we have already emplaced employer mandates that see employees facing dismissal for non-compliance, the loss of wages is typically more than the cost of Austria's fines. The federal government has recommended all employers to follow suit, which would make it very difficult for such individuals to find employment.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,358
Points
1,260
... Do you consider someone that is pro-vaccine but anti-mandate to be an anti-vaxxer? Does this make the Pope an anti-vaxxer because although he has recommended his followers to get vaccinated, referring to it as an "act of love", he has also stated that "vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary".


(...)
I wouldn't consider the Pope anti-vax, especially given 1) the Vatican's own semi-mandate as of this past 1 October - more here from Catholic media, and 2) his encouragement (rather than active or passive discouragement) of people getting the shots.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
84
Points
450
I wouldn't consider the Pope anti-vax, especially given 1) the Vatican's own semi-mandate as of this past 1 October - more here from Catholic media, and 2) his encouragement (rather than active or passive discouragement) of people getting the shots.
The Vatican's vaccination policy states that all employees are to be vaccinated or submit to testing. Requiring employees to be tested regularly is not the same thing as a vaccine mandate. There is nothing in the policy that is contrary to the Pope's previous remarks stating that vaccination must be voluntary and that Catholics may refuse vaccination on grounds of conscience.

So, if he apparently does not support mandatory vaccination, would you consider him to be an "anti-vaxxer" based off the previously proposed definition from Merriam-Webster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
704
Points
1,060
Speaking of employer encouragement, I find it strange that restaurant workers still have no mandate while the patrons do. It seems like every couple days our county announces that anyone who visited restaurant x during the period of Dec 1- Dec 8 needs to go get tested…. It clearly has to be an issue with someone who works there. Presumably it has to do with the lack of people who are willing to work there, shrinking the pool further is maybe not an option.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,629
Points
1,090
Remius, so you support Austria's decision? Would you support a similar decision in Canada at our current vaccination rate? If not, at what vaccination rate do you consider such a mandate to be justified?

In Canada we have already emplaced employer mandates that see employees facing dismissal for non-compliance, the loss of wages is typically more than the cost of Austria's fines. The federal government has recommended all employers to follow suit, which would make it very difficult for such individuals to find employment.
I don’t know enough about Austria’s cultural and political make up to make an informed decision on whether I support or not.

All I know is I support the right for anyone to refuse vaccination on whatever grounds they see fit. Be it moral, religious, fear, or pseudo scientific beliefs etc etc.

But I also support society creating the rules and parameters that someone has to follow in order to fully participate in said society.

So while I cannot say how I feel about what Austria does for Austria, I would not be comfortable with Canada setting continuous fines for non compliance of vaccination as an over arching law. But I am perfectly fine with Federal and Provincial Governments setting the rules or allowing businesses and enterprise to set the parameters for conditions of employment and safety within their respective jurisdictions to get through this.

People can be fired for whatever reason barring human rights issues based on race, age, gender etc. As long as proper severance or collective agreements are followed and notice is given.
 
Top