Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Part XIII

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Will you get the vaccine?

  • Yes - whichever is available

    Votes: 44 49.4%
  • Yes, - mRNA version

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • Yes - Vector / Protein

    Votes: 5 5.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 25 28.1%
  • Already got it.

    Votes: 7 7.9%

  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
But they tell us getting vaccinated doesn't stop you from spreading the virus.

As much as I am an advocate of folks taking the vaccine; this is what I don't get and don't like. Folks that dont want to take vaccine should not be ostracized.

Its not like taking the vaccine stops you from spreading the virus; it just will protect you from severe victims.

So if folks decide not to take the vaccine and they get severe symptoms due to covid then thats their fault; it was the risk they were willing to take. Just no "public fund" be used for their long term care is the only thing I will say as a tax paying citizen
 
As much as I am an advocate of folks taking the vaccine; this is what I don't get and don't like. Folks that dont want to take vaccine should not be ostracized.

Its not like taking the vaccine stops you from spreading the virus; it just will protect you from severe victims.

So if folks decide not to take the vaccine and they get severe symptoms due to covid then thats their fault; it was the risk they were willing to take. Just no "public fund" be used for their long term care is the only thing I will say as a tax paying citizen

This is dated. There are already reports that show that vaccines not only prevent illness and death in the vaccine receiver, they are slowing down spread. Health systems are recommending that public messaging reflect that.
 
As much as I am an advocate of folks taking the vaccine; this is what I don't get and don't like. Folks that dont want to take vaccine should not be ostracized.

Its not like taking the vaccine stops you from spreading the virus; it just will protect you from severe victims.

So if folks decide not to take the vaccine and they get severe symptoms due to covid then thats their fault; it was the risk they were willing to take. Just no "public fund" be used for their long term care is the only thing I will say as a tax paying citizen

Yes, I don’t see how it is any different than heavy smokers or obese over-eaters. Actually, those two groups are much more strenuous to the healthcare system. But tax payers pay for their healthcare every day. Should we refuse them treatment too?
 
As much as I am an advocate of folks taking the vaccine; this is what I don't get and don't like. Folks that dont want to take vaccine should not be ostracized.

Its not like taking the vaccine stops you from spreading the virus; it just will protect you from severe victims.

So if folks decide not to take the vaccine and they get severe symptoms due to covid then thats their fault; it was the risk they were willing to take. Just no "public fund" be used for their long term care is the only thing I will say as a tax paying citizen
Get out man. You tax doesn’t pay for squat. It barely pays for you kid or grand kid to ride the bus to school. Pretty self entitled b.s to me. So as a healthy dude I’m supposed to feel entitled because i never put any monetary expense on the system.
 
Last edited:
This is dated. There are already reports that show that vaccines not only prevent illness and death in the vaccine receiver, they are slowing down spread. Health systems are recommending that public messaging reflect that.

Do Covid-19 vaccines stop coronavirus transmission? Here's what research says.

A crucial question: How well do the vaccines prevent asymptomatic infections?

When federal health authorities authorized the first Covid-19 vaccines late last year, they acted based on evidence proving that vaccinated people were far less likely than unvaccinated people to develop Covid-19 symptoms.
But as public health officials emphasized at the time, there wasn't enough evidence to determine whether the vaccines also prevented people from developing asymptomatic coronavirus infections. That matters because, at least in theory, a vaccinated person with an asymptomatic infection could still transmit the coronavirus to others.
To gauge how likely post-vaccination transmission is in the real world, researchers are conducting mass coronavirus screenings of vaccinated people, hoping to detect any asymptomatic cases.
For instance, according to Vox, a working paper—not yet peer-reviewed—released Friday in The Lancet assessed thousands of Covid-19 screenings among health care workers at a hospital in Cambridge, England, including both unvaccinated staff and staff who had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
The researchers found that, among the unvaccinated staff, 0.80% tested positive for the coronavirus. In comparison, among staff who had received the vaccine, only 0.37% tested positive less than 12 days after their vaccination, and just 0.20% tested positive more than 12 days after vaccination.
According to Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University and co-leader of the study, the results suggest the risk of developing asymptomatic Covid-19 is four times less among health care workers who have been vaccinated for at least 12 days.
Meanwhile, a press released on a pre-published, not-yet-peer-reviewed paper from the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer found that the vaccine appeared to reduce all coronavirus infections—including asymptomatic infections—by 89.4% and symptomatic infections by 93.7%.
While both studies focused specifically on Pfizer's vaccine, experts told Vox's Kelsey Piper that Moderna's vaccine would likely produce similar results, since both vaccines work similarly.
For its part, Moderna found in its supplemental research submitted to FDA—based on nasal swab test data—that only 14 of the 14,134 people given its vaccine had an asymptomatic case of Covid-19, compared with 38 of the 14,073 people in the control group.
 
Yes, I don’t see how it is any different than heavy smokers or obese over-eaters. Actually, those two groups are much more strenuous to the healthcare system. But tax payers pay for their healthcare every day. Should we refuse them treatment too?

Yes, I've always hated that argument. There are so many dangerous behaviours that we cover no questions asked. It's a very slippery slope to start picking and choosing what not to cover. If they ever did that, I would just say fine, give me the paperwork to opt out of the healthcare system and keep my thousands of dollars a year plus refund the hundreds of thousands I've paid into it over the last 30 years while barely using it if you're going to break the contract when I finally need it.
 
As much as I am an advocate of folks taking the vaccine; this is what I don't get and don't like. Folks that dont want to take vaccine should not be ostracized.

Its not like taking the vaccine stops you from spreading the virus; it just will protect you from severe victims.

So if folks decide not to take the vaccine and they get severe symptoms due to covid then thats their fault; it was the risk they were willing to take. Just no "public fund" be used for their long term care is the only thing I will say as a tax paying citizen
That last bit is preposterous.
There are umpteen life style choice diseases - why is it fair to decide to target just one? You get to decide? Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
That last bit is preposterous.
There are umpteen life style choice diseases - why is it fair to decide to target just one? You get to decide? Ridiculous.

The decision to forego a single discrete action that eliminates the vast majority of risk because of the election to trust in your C in grade 10 applied science over a global medical and scientific consensus is not exactly a "lifestyle"

To be clear- I'm not in favour of barring anyone from healthcare, it's simply not the Canadian way. But that being said actions/ consequences for choices is in no way discrimination, and there is long standing precedent for it under our charter.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pink Mist
The decision to forego a single discrete action that eliminates the vast majority of risk because of the election to trust in your C in grade 10 applied science over a global medical and scientific consensus is not exactly a "lifestyle"

To be clear- I'm not in favour of barring anyone from healthcare, it's simply not the Canadian way. But that being said actions/ consequences for choices is in no way discrimination, and there is long standing precedent for it under our charter.

Love people that resort to personal insults because they are unable to articulate a point properly.

If you choose to blindly follow Justin Trudeau and Dr. Fauci, Dr. Tam, etc. all the power to you. Forgive me if I have my reservations after a multitude of their lies and deception. Your ideology causes my worldview tremendous harm every single day, so you'll have to live with the fact that mine might cause you some similar distress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cypruss
Love people that resort to personal insults because they are unable to articulate a point properly.

Love that you see the point itself as an insult and have no reply. It's a simple statement of fact. The decision to not get a vaccine is not a lifestyle. Facing repercussions for that decision is not discrimination on a protected ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pink Mist
As much as I am an advocate of folks taking the vaccine; this is what I don't get and don't like. Folks that dont want to take vaccine should not be ostracized.

Its not like taking the vaccine stops you from spreading the virus; it just will protect you from severe victims.

So if folks decide not to take the vaccine and they get severe symptoms due to covid then thats their fault; it was the risk they were willing to take. Just no "public fund" be used for their long term care is the only thing I will say as a tax paying citizen
I got to disagree, some people can’t take the vaccine, others are not confident it’s safe. Both of these reasons have no baring on “voiding” your right to health care imo. Some Ontario motorcycle riders are exempt from wearing helmets for religious reasons, but they’re not having their health care denied in the event of a accident. Those who choose not to be vaccinated should continue with all the protocols now in place to ensure both themselves and others are not exposed to the virus because of irresponsible behaviour.
 
Love that you see the point itself as an insult and have no reply. It's a simple statement of fact. The decision to not get a vaccine is not a lifestyle. Facing repercussions for that decision is not discrimination on a protected ground.

Your desire for complete obedience to the system isn't my problem and neither is your definition of 'lifestyle'. Injecting yourself with virtually untested, rushed to market toxic poisons with yet-to-be known long term side effects is your call. To call it a 'discrete action' is laughable at best and quite insulting at worst.
For the record, you can see my original post where I claimed I wanted to wait a year or so to see what happens to people like you. You want to effectively FORCE me into taking it now or deny me healthcare - even if as a vaccinated person, you gave me the disease.
 
You don't get the vaccine just for yourself -- you also get it for others.

The vaccine doesn't necessarily give you immunity. Even under ideal labatory conditions, the most effective vaccines are not effective for at least 5% of people who receive them, and perhaps much more than that in real-world conditions.

Even if you are vaccinated, you can't assume you are immune. You should continue to take the same public health precautions that you would if you were not vaccinated because there is no way to tell which vaccinated persons are not immune unless they actually come down with symptomatic COVID.

Asymptomatic vaccinated persons can also unknowingly transmit COVID to their family, friends and other personal contacts.

Without knowing individually which vaccinated persons are immune -- or not -- if enough people get the vaccine then the chains of transmission will eventually be broken and public health would be restored. Like polio. Like smallpox. Like typhoid fever. Like other contagious diseases that are prone to epidemic and for which there is a vaccine.

It is an individual decision for which there are public health consequences that go far beyond yourself.

Naturally, this doesn't sit well with me-firsters in a me-first society.
 
Last edited:
Your desire for complete obedience to the system isn't my problem and neither is your definition of 'lifestyle'. Injecting yourself with virtually untested, rushed to market toxic poisons with yet-to-be known long term side effects is your call. To call it a 'discrete action' is laughable at best and quite insulting at worst.
For the record, you can see my original post where I claimed I wanted to wait a year or so to see what happens to people like you. You want to effectively FORCE me into taking it now or deny me healthcare - even if as a vaccinated person, you gave me the disease.
There should be concern over the long term effects of a vaccine that hasn’t been properly vetted, there’s a reason it usually takes 10 plus years for drugs/vaccines to normally go to market. If your not concerned with the above get the vaccine, if you do have reservations continue to protect yourselves and others by the current protocols.
 
Your desire for complete obedience to the system isn't my problem and neither is your definition of 'lifestyle'. Injecting yourself with virtually untested, rushed to market toxic poisons with yet-to-be known long term side effects is your call. To call it a 'discrete action' is laughable at best and quite insulting at worst.
For the record, you can see my original post where I claimed I wanted to wait a year or so to see what happens to people like you. You want to effectively FORCE me into taking it now or deny me healthcare - even if as a vaccinated person, you gave me the disease.

A. I literally said I'm against denying anyone access to healthcare. That's not the same thing as being denied access to congregate settings such as MSG.

B. It will have been out there for a year or damn close to it by the time the majority of Canadians get the opportunity

C. "virtually untested, rushed to market toxic poisons with yet-to-be known long term side effects" plays right back to the "insult" (fact) that whatever your education level is, choosing to trust in it +anti-vax propaganda over the guidance of the global scientific and medical community is not a "lifestyle", it's a bad decision.
 
Your desire for complete obedience to the system isn't my problem and neither is your definition of 'lifestyle'. Injecting yourself with virtually untested, rushed to market toxic poisons with yet-to-be known long term side effects is your call. To call it a 'discrete action' is laughable at best and quite insulting at worst.
For the record, you can see my original post where I claimed I wanted to wait a year or so to see what happens to people like you. You want to effectively FORCE me into taking it now or deny me healthcare - even if as a vaccinated person, you gave me the disease.

The vaccines have been tested on most groups and there is no evidence that they are toxic poison...

You’re right in that there have been no long-term studies/tests, but for me, when I do get it I’ll be taking either the NovaVax or J&J which are based on more traditional and time-tested methods of vaccine production rather than this experimental mRNA stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad