Canadian COVID-19 News

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I agree with you Dan. At some point we will have to accept a certain level of risk with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It's very unlikely to disappear. But we are still in the midst of a global pandemic. We are still learning how this disease behaves, mutates, and what the longer-term impacts of infection are.

We've seen the impact of premature easing of public health strictures (aka Alberta & Saskatchewan). Given the steep price society has already paid, it seems prudent to remain vigilant and cautious in our approach, especially when most of the rest of the world hasn't even seen a first dose of a vaccine, while we in the rich countries are doling out third doses.

I agree with you Mike, we should take all the precautions available to us and should remain vigilant. I think we can go to work and do many other things at a very low risk level without taking any undue risks.

Last weekend we were refused entry into a restaurant because one of our party had an image of her drivers license on her phone instead of the actual piece of plastic and paper. We can go curling without masks but have to wipe down all the rocks and scoring numbers with disinfectant prior to leaving. We can sit down at a table without masks in public, drink enough to be legally impaired , then re-don our masks to go outside to smoke or drive home.

I don't claim to have all the answers but I do believe we are overstating the risk to our lives from Covid and concurrently taking many other risks without thought. It is my opinion that if some people choose not to get vaccinated or wear masks that they should be left to take those risks as they see fit. I will choose not to be unmasked around them, will avoid the areas they congregate, and will take the booster shot when I am eligible. These people are not appreciably increasing my risk of dying through their behaviours.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I don't claim to have all the answers but I do believe we are overstating the risk to our lives from Covid and concurrently taking many other risks without thought. It is my opinion that if some people choose not to get vaccinated or wear masks that they should be left to take those risks as they see fit. I will choose not to be unmasked around them, will avoid the areas they congregate, and will take the booster shot when I am eligible. These people are not appreciably increasing my risk of dying through their behaviours.

Statistics say that the greater the proportion of the unvaccinated, the longer COVID will hang around, so yes on paper, these people represent a greater risk of COVID to us all.

But we're not going to get to 100% vaccinated, or 90% even, and we can't maintain elevated protection measures or a two-tier society forever, so the question is: at point do we say "enough, we've reduced the threat of COVID to acceptable levels" and drop most restrictions? You seem to be arguing that we're there now. Authorities still feel that continued vigilance is necessary. My gut feeling is that between vaccine mandates and more people coming to their senses, Canada will get closer to 90% vaccinated sometime next year. And there are some proven COVID treatments about ready, which could turn COVID into a treatable illness, finally.

So... my prediction is for the end of most mask mandates and vaccine passports in Canada some time next year. Besides, we have limited attention-spans, and when the economic downturn finally happens , COVID will drop off the front page.

[AiniA]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But we're not going to get to 100% vaccinated, or 90% even, and we can't maintain elevated protection measures or a two-tier society forever, so the question is: at point do we say "enough, we've reduced the threat of COVID to acceptable levels" and drop most restrictions? You seem to be arguing that we're there now. Authorities still feel that continued vigilance is necessary. My gut feeling is that between vaccine mandates and more people coming to their senses, Canada will get closer to 90% vaccinated sometime next year. And there

According to the Toronto Star the percentage of fully-vaxxed people in Ontario is just over 85% and seems to go up about 0.1% every day. Looking at 90% just before Christmas.

[AiniA]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

G&M:
Ontario won’t mandate COVID-19 vaccines for health care workers, as province releases booster shot plan

[/URL][/B]

But mandates are being imposed by many (most) hospitals themselves, including all of the big hospitals in Toronto that have thousands of employees. Having no province-wide mandate is just Doug Ford being Doug Ford, let someone else be seen as the villain especially as we approach an election.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Last weekend we were refused entry into a restaurant because one of our party had an image of her drivers license on her phone instead of the actual piece of plastic and paper. We can go curling without masks but have to wipe down all the rocks and scoring numbers with disinfectant prior to leaving. We can sit down at a table without masks in public, drink enough to be legally impaired , then re-don our masks to go outside to smoke or drive home.

There are certainly some inconsistent and silly responses going on out there. But that's true of all public responses to wide-spread issues. The answer here is to get smarter, not conclude none of it makes sense.

Originally Posted by danstanford

I don't claim to have all the answers but I do believe we are overstating the risk to our lives from Covid and concurrently taking many other risks without thought. It is my opinion that if some people choose not to get vaccinated or wear masks that they should be left to take those risks as they see fit. I will choose not to be unmasked around them, will avoid the areas they congregate, and will take the booster shot when I am eligible. These people are not appreciably increasing my risk of dying through their behaviours.

Here's where we differ. I choose to listen to actual experts on these questions, and they remain clear in their assessment of risk, and their recommendations to remain vigilant.

With regard to the unvaxxed (or indeed, the anti-maskers), my view remains that they should be allowed to make their own choices. But the rest of society also gets to make our choices. In a pandemic (and this point is critical), anti-folk pose a very real risk to others. They do this through direct exposure, but also in perpetuating a pandemic by unnecessarily providing the virus with hosts where it can propagate and mutate. So imposing restrictions on those who choose to put others at risk is a reasonable consequence.

If we weren't in an epidemic or pandemic situation, this calculus would be different. But that's what makes a pandemic (or local epidemic) different. During epidemics of other diseases, society also makes hard choices about who can mingle freely and who cannot, based on vaccination status. We demand students be vaccinated to attend school, and workers be vaccinated to go to some workplaces, so I don't understand why people want to treat a pandemic with a lessor response.

All this, BTW, is what the experts tell us. This is not my opinion.

At some point SARS-CoV-2 will shift to endemic virus. There will be local flareups, much like the flu, which will require local epidemic responses. But it will no longer be a pandemic.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So... my prediction is for the end of most mask mandates and vaccine passports in Canada some time next year. Besides, we have limited attention-spans, and when the economic downturn finally happens , COVID will drop off the front page.

This seems reasonable and likely to me as well ... as long as we don't see the emergence of a new, more virulent, variant.

Originally Posted by AiniA

But mandates are being imposed by many (most) hospitals themselves, including all of the big hospitals in Toronto that have thousands of employees. Having no province-wide mandate is just Doug Ford being Doug Ford, let someone else be seen as the villain especially as we approach an election.

Yup... typical political response. Allow others to make the hard decisions and take the flak.

[wingssail]

[QUOTE=Scorpius;3515168...I really can't see why someone shown to have recklessly not been vaccinated and who then spread Covid to someone who subsequently died of it, should not be charged with murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. (The contact tracers should have the necessary evidence). There have been precedents with the Aids epidemic.[/QUOTE]

Reckless is the key word. I am not sure what charge might be appropriate but there should be recognition that there are some consequences.

Thursday a young friend showed up at our gate unannounced. My wife and I were just arriving ourselves and were so happy to see her after a two year absence we both threw our arms around her and all had big hugs and of course invited her down to the boat. We were masked, she was not.

She told us that she had been travelling in the region and attending nature seminars and parties with a group of other young friends. We knew none of those people and it all sounded pretty carefree. She stated that she was unvaccinated and didn't believe she needed to be vaccinated and did not believe in vaccines, (nor did she think masks were effective). She stated that she has not been tested for Covid, even prior to the domestic and international flights she had recently taken. We were shocked and beginning to get a bad feeling about the situation. We had let our guard down.

While sitting together with her in our cockpit two other persons arrived for a scheduled crew member interview. Now there were 5 of us sitting in close proximity in our cockpit. Any of us might be getting exposed at that moment and we had plans for the weekend to visit another friend with serious pre-existing lung issues.

Visions of worst case scenarios flew through our heads.

A decision, not a popular one with our young friend, was made. She had to go immediately to a local 24 hour clinic and obtain a rapid PCR test, that minute, no choice. We insisted, with plenty of firmness. Otherwise Judy and I would be forced to voluntarily self quarantine.

She got the test. It cost her $45. She was negative. We relaxed a little, but bad feelings persisted. She cut her visit short and left.

But it shows how easy it is for a reckless person to put others at risk.

[desodave]

BC is closing down mink farming in the province for public health reasons related to the transmission of covid between mink and workers. There will probably be many others happy at the shutdown given the past campaigns against mink farming.

BC Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry said there have been multiple outbreaks at B.C. mink farms, more than the one or two per year that the government expected. The first was last December and there is a persistent outbreak happening right now at one of the farms, with virus transmission back and forth between mink and humans.

https://www.pqbnews.com/news/bc-plan...ustry-by-2025/

[Scorpius]

I wonder if there is one thing we are perhaps overlooking in this debate between the pro-vaxxers and maskers, and the anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, and this, I think is it:

The pandemic is largely invisible to the vast majority of the population. The crisis is not out in the streets where it is visible to all, it is in our hospitals. Get seriously ill and you go to hospital and disappear from sight. The rest of us go about our lives - albeit with restrictions aimed to contain the largely invisible disease.

Many of us pay attention to the news, read the statistics, and understand why the precautions and restrictions exist. However, if you don't keep up on this stuff you could easily believe there is no pandemic, or at least, it has been blown away out of proportion.

I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers just feel the whole thing is overblown and they therefore have little or nothing to worry about - and resent, and react to, the rules and restrictions.

[desodave]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

I wonder if there is one thing we are perhaps overlooking in this debate between the pro-vaxxers and maskers, and the anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, and this, I think is it:

The pandemic is largely invisible to the vast majority of the population. The crisis is not out in the streets where it is visible to all, it is in our hospitals. Get seriously ill and you go to hospital and disappear from sight. The rest of us go about our lives - albeit with restrictions aimed to contain the largely invisible disease.

Many of us pay attention to the news, read the statistics, and understand why the precautions and restrictions exist. However, if you don't keep up on this stuff you could easily believe there is no pandemic, or at least, it has been blown away out of proportion.

I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers just feel the whole thing is overblown and they therefore have little or nothing to worry about - and resent, and react to, the rules and restrictions.

Probably a big majority of them are in that boat imo. Add in a good dollop of misinformation/disinformation, stir it up with some self-righteousness, and then go about doing what you want to do. At the base of ALL the anti- crowd imo is a belief that the pandemic is overblown and that covid isn't going to affect them. Or that the side effects are more dangerous than the disease ie minimizing the effect covid can have on them personally. Head in the sand, willful ignorance or poor analysis ... it's all based on minimizing the effects of covid. And sometimes that minimization is helped on by those who have had mild cases and recovered completely without any hospitalization ... just means to them and others that there's not really anything to fear.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by desodave

Sorry ... that's a bit too far for me. Vaccinated people can spread it too albeit at a much lower rate. If memory serves me, the AIDs precedents involved involved person to person consensual contact but with one person withholding their infected status from the other to get that consent.

Not really. Latest superspreader events showed the evidence, that the breakouts came from fully vaccinated. Hope they are also prosecuted for manslaughter or murder then.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Not really. Latest superspreader events showed the evidence, that the breakouts came from fully vaccinated. Hope they are also prosecuted for manslaughter or murder then.

Please provide the evidence and the citation please.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Not really. Latest superspreader events showed the evidence, that the breakouts came from fully vaccinated. Hope they are also prosecuted for manslaughter or murder then.

If true (and I'm not sure it is), it's possible the perpetrator could be charged, depending on the totality of the situation.

Since starting this debate I've researched the Criminal Code and it appears that the most appropriate charge would be Criminal Negligence Causing Death (or Causing Bodily Harm if the victim merely gets sick without dying). There are two conditions that can lead to the laying of a charge:
1. Negligently DOING something which causes death or bodily harm, or
2. Negligently NOT DOING something, which the perpetrator had a duty to do, and the failure to do causes the death or bodily harm.

I suspect the trial would revolve around the "Duty of Care" provision. Does an individual have a "Duty of Care" to take reasonable precautions (e.g. get vaccinated, wear a mask, etc.) in order to protect his or her fellow humans from the risk of bodily harm (illness) or death. It would be an interesting trial.

We're talking about the reckless behaviour of one person causing the death of another. In other circumstances there would be consequences. Why not in this situation?

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

If true (and I'm not sure it is), it's possible the perpetrator could be charged, depending on the totality of the situation.



Since starting this debate I've researched the Criminal Code and it appears that the most appropriate charge would be Criminal Negligence Causing Death (or Causing Bodily Harm if the victim merely gets sick without dying). There are two conditions that can lead to the laying of a charge:

1. Negligently DOING something which causes death or bodily harm, or

2. Negligently NOT DOING something, which the perpetrator had a duty to do, and the failure to do causes the death or bodily harm.



I suspect the trial would revolve around the "Duty of Care" provision. Does an individual have a "Duty of Care" to take reasonable precautions (e.g. get vaccinated, wear a mask, etc.) in order to protect his or her fellow humans from the risk of bodily harm (illness) or death. It would be an interesting trial.



We're talking about the reckless behaviour of one person causing the death of another. In other circumstances there would be consequences. Why not in this situation?

Because the vaccines do not protect from infevtion nor from spreading, they may prevent hospitalizations and symptoms and lead to careless behavior.

On the other hand, a unvaccinated person would more likely notice an infection and stay home / quarantine, so less likely spread the virus.

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Because the vaccines do not protect from infevtion nor from spreading, they may prevent hospitalizations and symptoms and lead to careless behavior.

On the other hand, a unvaccinated person would more likely notice an infection and stay home / quarantine, so less likely spread the virus.

Proof provided above shows INFECTION much much more common in unvaccinated (10x). So at least part of your statement is FALSE.

As to unvaccinated more likely staying home if ill (right...), how about providing some proof (you know, links/citations) for this...

Otherwise it's anti-vaxxer nonsense.