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

CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,578
Points
1,140
Put another way, they take a more ... European approach to collective rights.

In the words of the DM in "Yes, Minister", "courageous" move on Quebec's part.
I'm going to be honest here. The more the woke masses become more ingrained throughout the rest of Canada, the more I feel that Quebec is more closely aligned with my general overall thinking. Maybe its my years living in Europe, both for education and work, that I feel more at home there.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,836
Points
1,160
It interesting to see our take on personal liberties versus other parts of the world. We are so wrapped up in our rights we forget about societal responsibilities.
The medical exemptions are so narrow, hardly anyone qualifies for them. My wife has a heart issue of unknown origins, despite a multitude of tests, should she be punished for not risking a relatively new form of vaccine with known heart related side affects? The medical system will happily subscribe you drugs that have well known side effects as the "standard", if your worried about those side effects should you still be forced to take the drug? Where does this "For the common good" end and who decides what is "good"? If we ban air travel for the next 3 years from the America's we can reduce the spread of new variants significantly, wouldn't that be for the "Common good"?
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,090
Will be interesting to see how they enforce this. How much they will fine. How long it lasts. How many provinces follow suit. How many unvaccinated get vaccinated.

I could see the unvaccinated just flip the middle finger, refuse to pay the fines and wait for the courts.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
The medical exemptions are so narrow, hardly anyone qualifies for them. My wife has a heart issue of unknown origins, despite a multitude of tests, should she be punished for not risking a relatively new form of vaccine with known heart related side affects? The medical system will happily subscribe you drugs that have well known side effects as the "standard", if your worried about those side effects should you still be forced to take the drug? Where does this "For the common good" end and who decides what is "good"? If we ban air travel for the next 3 years from the America's we can reduce the spread of new variants significantly, wouldn't that be for the "Common good"?
I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but omicron spread globally so fast that it was likely here before south africa even noticed it existed.

So you would need to ban air travel from everywhere. Nothing from the USA, nothing from Europe, nothing from Asia or Africa.

That means nobody leaving Canada and returning, that means no american truckers crossing our border, no foreign ships workers coming on to our soil.

Good luck with travel bans, unless you copy north korea, they don't work.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,566
Points
1,110
I'm going to be honest here. The more the woke masses become more ingrained throughout the rest of Canada, the more I feel that Quebec is more closely aligned with my general overall thinking. Maybe its my years living in Europe, both for education and work, that I feel more at home there.
This isn't woke, this verges on totalitarianism. If you have ever posted on here about freedom of choice (insert word), then you should be extremely concerned about the Quebec governments approach to this. As much as I would like to see all Canadians vaccinated, I still see it as a personal choice, regardless of the impact it may have on me and others.

I expect governments to try to influence me ; it is a part of the political process and I accept it, and will consider and act/react accordingly. The spectrum of influence is characterized as "Engage -- Inform -- Educate -- Influence -- Persuade -- Coerce", with the left hand side of the spectrum seen to be benign. When you actualize the right side of the spectrum, you are treading on some rights and freedoms that many of us have pledged our lives to defending. This is not what government in a democracy is about, nor should they usurp this power.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,193
Points
1,010
The camel's nose enters the chat tent:

No real limiting principle for charging people premiums/fees for being unhealthy due to factors under their control.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,090
The issue is will fining people who so far are willing to die on their hill for this actually get vaccinated?
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,578
Points
1,140
This isn't woke, this verges on totalitarianism. If you have ever posted on here about freedom of choice, then you should be extremely concerned about the Quebec governments approach to this. As much as I would like to see all Canadians vaccinated, I still see it as a personal choice, regardless of the impact it may have on me and others.

I expect governments to try to influence me ; it is a part of the political process and I accept it, and will consider and act/react accordingly. The spectrum of influence is characterized as "Engage -- Inform -- Educate -- Influence -- Persuade -- Coerce", with the left hand side of the spectrum seen to be benign. When you actualize the right side of the spectrum, you are treading on some rights and freedoms that many of us have pledged our lives to defending. This is not what government in a democracy is about, nor should they usurp this power.
So all those taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are “totalitarian”? It’s little to no difference between the two, don’t choose to vaccinate and we tax you, choose to smoke (and possibly get a smoke related disease and drain the health care system) and we tax you.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,566
Points
1,110
So all those taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are “totalitarian”? It’s little to no difference between the two, don’t choose to vaccinate and we tax you, choose to smoke (and possibly get a smoke related disease and drain the health care system) and we tax you.
You are comparing apples and elephants (or camels). Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are an easy way for the government to generate annual consumption revenue, the long term health impacts factor little into it. There are many other higher risk activities that have been accepted by society, over the course of our development, that see no penalties, even though their potential outcomes are catastrophic. So, strawman argument.

Lets suppose, for the sake of discussion, that this law is allowed to go through. Would you support mandatory flu vaccines, or a fine.? I seem to recall an earlier post where you eschewed them. Would you support being fined if you have a cold, and venture from your house. All of these are heretofore accepted maladies that have a significant annual impact on the health care system, especially on the elderly and immuno-compromised.

This is a very slippery, and perilous slope.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,578
Points
1,140
You are comparing apples and elephants (or camels). Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are an easy way for the government to generate annual consumption revenue, the long term health impacts factor little into it. There are many other higher risk activities that have been accepted by society, over the course of our development, that see no penalties, even though their potential outcomes are catastrophic. So, strawman argument.

Lets suppose, for the sake of discussion, that this law is allowed to go through. Would you support mandatory flu vaccines, or a fine.? I seem to recall an earlier post where you eschewed them. Would you support being fined if you have a cold, and venture from your house. All of these are heretofore accepted maladies that have a significant annual impact on the health care system, especially on the elderly and immuno-compromised.

This is a very slippery, and perilous slope.
So you don’t want the measles vaccine to be mandatory? How about Polio?
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
954
Points
1,060
I guess if people want to remove medical coverage or establish a fee list and make smokers, unvaxxed, drinkers, obese, etc pay, they shouldn't stick to those groups. People who voluntarily put themselves in mortal danger or chance of injuries by mountain climbing, parachuting, powered race drivers, football players, base jumpers, hang gliders, or other injury producing sports. Why should they not pay for their own choices also? Or workers injured on the job when it's determined they ignored the safety rules. After all, it was their choice and their injuries, that take time and resources from those injured through no fault of their own.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,365
Points
1,160
You are comparing apples and elephants (or camels). Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are an easy way for the government to generate annual consumption revenue, the long term health impacts factor little into it. There are many other higher risk activities that have been accepted by society, over the course of our development, that see no penalties, even though their potential outcomes are catastrophic. So, strawman argument.

Lets suppose, for the sake of discussion, that this law is allowed to go through. Would you support mandatory flu vaccines, or a fine.? I seem to recall an earlier post where you eschewed them. Would you support being fined if you have a cold, and venture from your house. All of these are heretofore accepted maladies that have a significant annual impact on the health care system, especially on the elderly and immuno-compromised.

This is a very slippery, and perilous slope.

"Totalitarianism is not about some state that appears out of nowhere and suddenly is all-powerful. There can't be any such thing. Totalitarianism starts when the difference between your public life and your private life is effaced." Timothy D. Snyder
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,751
Points
1,060
The issue is will fining people who so far are willing to die on their hill for this actually get vaccinated?
There's a 99.99% chance they won't die on that hill though, as long as they're under 60.
So you don’t want the measles vaccine to be mandatory? How about Polio?
No one needed to talk about making those vaccines mandatory, people wanted them because they could tangibly see the effect the disease would have on them. COVID19 smashes through the elderly and the sick like a brush fire. For everyone else (which are the overwhelming majority) it's a garbage flu. The fact that we have to talk about how to coerce people into taking something should tell you about the abject failure of the government narrative on COVID19.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,566
Points
1,110
So you don’t want the measles vaccine to be mandatory? How about Polio?
You're stretching your credulity here with that argument. When I was six, the only vaccine that was available was against polio. My parents opted to have me vaccinated, as the alternative was perhaps months in an Iron Lung, and then crippling paralysis if I survived. They were not threatened with pariah status or fines if they chose not to vaccinate me, the cost-benefit analysis to enable me to live a productive life, (and immeasurably minimize the cost to them) swayed them in their decision-making process. But it was their decision, not the state/government. That argument stands today.

The MMR (Measles/Mumps/Rubella) vaccine wasn't even invented when I was a child. I had my first MMR in the military in the early 80's, even though I had suffered through all of those diseases as a child.

There are literally tens of thousands of anti-vaxx parents in Canada, for a variety of reasons. The biggest hurdle that they face is that their children won't be allowed in public schools. But, that is the same (their) choice, and the same cost-benefit analysis that my parents made. No one is talking about fining them for their freedom of choice.

Over the last two years, and for somewhat defendable reasons, we have seen a variety of our rights and freedoms curtailed or abrogated. I have supported it to this point, but the coercive nature of fines over a fundamental right is a line in the sand that I will draw. This is beyond egregious.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,179
Points
1,040
Will be interesting to see how they enforce this. How much they will fine. How long it lasts. How many provinces follow suit. How many unvaccinated get vaccinated.

I could see the unvaccinated just flip the middle finger, refuse to pay the fines and wait for the courts.
I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that this will be some kind of tie-in to Quebec income tax assessment after they do a merge with their public health database; so not a fine or billable fee, per se. Administratively, it seems to be the simplest. If so, folks may protest now out of principle, but may get really grumpy come late Spring.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,090

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,414
Points
1,110
I'm not sure if you've noticed or not, but omicron spread globally so fast that it was likely here before south africa even noticed it existed.

So you would need to ban air travel from everywhere. Nothing from the USA, nothing from Europe, nothing from Asia or Africa.

That means nobody leaving Canada and returning, that means no american truckers crossing our border, no foreign ships workers coming on to our soil.

Good luck with travel bans, unless you copy north korea, they don't work.
I do think you're correct.

I do think there will be a court challenge to this.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,578
Points
1,140
You're stretching your credulity here with that argument. When I was six, the only vaccine that was available was against polio. My parents opted to have me vaccinated, as the alternative was perhaps months in an Iron Lung, and then crippling paralysis if I survived. They were not threatened with pariah status or fines if they chose not to vaccinate me, the cost-benefit analysis to enable me to live a productive life, (and immeasurably minimize the cost to them) swayed them in their decision-making process. But it was their decision, not the state/government. That argument stands today.

The MMR (Measles/Mumps/Rubella) vaccine wasn't even invented when I was a child. I had my first MMR in the military in the early 80's, even though I had suffered through all of those diseases as a child.

There are literally tens of thousands of anti-vaxx parents in Canada, for a variety of reasons. The biggest hurdle that they face is that their children won't be allowed in public schools. But, that is the same (their) choice, and the same cost-benefit analysis that my parents made. No one is talking about fining them for their freedom of choice.

Over the last two years, and for somewhat defendable reasons, we have seen a variety of our rights and freedoms curtailed or abrogated. I have supported it to this point, but the coercive nature of fines over a fundamental right is a line in the sand that I will draw. This is beyond egregious.
There are tens of millions of pro-vaxx parents/people in Canada.
So, for the approx. 92% of those 12+ who have chosen vaccines and those approx 2-3.5% who can’t get vaccines for legitimate health reasons, those 94-95.5% 12+, they’re calling the shots and the 4.5-6% are just going to have to deal with it.
This is a democratic country, and within the framework of the law, the 95.5% can do whatever the heck they want. Those 4% can protest all they want, as is their right, they can launch as many legal challenges as they want, but guess what? As things stand right now, they will not convince the 95% that they are wrong and the 4% is right.
 
Top