Canadian COVID-19 News

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

I don't mind paying higher taxes if they go to improving healthcare (as well as infrastructure poverty, etc)

You either pay at the front end with social safety nets, or you pay later in other ways.

[Scorpius]

Right now (here on the west coast), "White Coat, Black Art", on CBC radio is discussing in depth, the problems in our hospitals due to Covid. Apparently in eastern Ontario, at the moment there are 2000 staff vacancies (not counting those on sick leave), about 2/3 of them nurses.

I think, for the rest of the country, the program is over - but it can be heard via the CBC website or app.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I
I also fear that our hard-working healthcare workers will once again carry the load, and Canada will muddle through again, and then government will say "There, told ya we were prepared enough".

Politics and people. Huh. Remember that old Bert and Ernie segment where Ernie won't fix the roof because it is raining and then later won't fix it because it is not raining. It's funny because it's true.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

Politics and people. Huh. Remember that old Bert and Ernie segment where Ernie won't fix the roof because it is raining and then later won't fix it because it is not raining. It's funny because it's true.

Makes sense to me [emoji6].

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why is that ironic? The vaccinated still catch Omicron, but at a lower rate. They might get sick, but will be much less likely to have severe illness than the unvaccinated. They are less likely to spread it. And yes Omicron is ripping through, and you already know who makes up a disproportionately hig number of the hospitalized.

How does any of this argue against vaccination, including kids? it makes no sense to leave a large pool of unvaccinated kids when we are still at the pandemic stage.

You probably didn't notice, but I'm not arguing against vaccination. It's a good thing to do if you're at all worried, or if you have comorbidities.

But it's illogical to blame the unvaccinated for the spread of the virus, when the virus would be spreading even at a 100% vaccination rate. It's a political argument, not a scientific one. It's an argument designed to make someone feel better about the people in their club, or point fingers at people who aren't. It's a distraction.

Again, I would encourage vaccination, as it will save lives. It does reduce the odds that you'll give it to someone else. But the currently available vaccinations aren't going stop covid from becoming endemic.

As far as children go, are you saying you want to vaccinate them not to protect them, but to protect someone else? I can understand that argument, but is it really an ethical one? I have reservations on that, unless you're very honest with parents that this the real reason you're encouraging it.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You probably didn't notice, but I'm not arguing against vaccination. It's a good thing to do if you're at all worried, or if you have comorbidities.

But it's illogical to blame the unvaccinated for the spread of the virus, when the virus would be spreading even at a 100% vaccination rate. It's a political argument, not a scientific one. It's an argument designed to make someone feel better about the people in their club, or point fingers at people who aren't. It's a distraction.

Again, I would encourage vaccination, as it will save lives. It does reduce the odds that you'll give it to someone else. But the currently available vaccinations aren't going stop covid from becoming endemic.

As far as children go, are you saying you want to vaccinate them not to protect them, but to protect someone else? I can understand that argument, but is it really an ethical one? I have reservations on that, unless you're very honest with parents that this the real reason you're encouraging it.

No, it's not illogical to blame the unvaccinated for the spread of the virus. The unvaccinated spread it at approximately twice the rate of the vaccinated and, when the vaccinated do catch it, they are much less likely to spread it and/or be hospitalized, and especially to end up in an ICU. We must protect our Canadian health care system by slowing the rate of infection as much as possible so that the infection of the 100% occurs over an extended period of time thus reducing the number of people in hospital at any one time.

I think it is now generally accepted that, especially with Omicron circulating, Covid WILL become endemic. There's not a lot of argument about that anymore.

Yes, we want children to be vaccinated to protect others. Canada is a caring society where the welfare of others is very important - unlike some other countries in this world where less collective attitudes prevail. But, as we have said many times, we are not advocating mandatory vaccination. We encourage EVERYONE who is eligable (pretty well everyone five and over now) to be vaccinated - but we are not in favour of forcing anyone. Again, children being vaccinated is important to slow the spread of the disease and protect our health care system.

If you are not Canadian I can understand you not understanding or accepting this logic.

[Scorpius]

From the CBC this evening:
B.C. to allow COVID-positive and double-vaxxed patients to share hospital rooms

Policy due to hospitals being overwhelmed with new cases, officials say

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You probably didn't notice, but I'm not arguing against vaccination. It's a good thing to do if you're at all worried, or if you have comorbidities.

But it's illogical to blame the unvaccinated for the spread of the virus, when the virus would be spreading even at a 100% vaccination rate. It's a political argument, not a scientific one...

What's getting lost in this debate is that, in Canada, 10% of the population is unvaccinated and that 10% are 77% of the people hospitalized with Covid-19.

That's the issue.

Vaccinated people are having surgeries and procedures cancelled and postponed because the system can't keep up. There are real consequences when biopsies or other procedures get postponed.

The unvaccinated are hijacking our hospitals.

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

What's getting lost in this debate is that, in Canada, 10% of the population is unvaccinated and that 10% are 77% of the people hospitalized with Covid-19.

That's the issue.

Vaccinated people are having surgeries and procedures cancelled and postponed because the system can't keep up. There are real consequences when biopsies or other procedures get postponed.

The unvaccinated are hijacking our hospitals.

I know, I had surgery to remove some cancer, just before the Omicron wave hit. Now, I would be sweating it out.
Not pleased, with some of my fellow Canadians.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You probably didn't notice, but I'm not arguing against vaccination. It's a good thing to do if you're at all worried, or if you have comorbidities.

And it's a good thing to protect the most people for the least effort. It lowers potential harm to a person, and it lowers the chance that the same person will be an effective spreader. You seem to miss that last part.

But it's illogical to blame the unvaccinated for the spread of the virus, when the virus would be spreading even at a 100% vaccination rate. It's a political argument, not a scientific one. It's an argument designed to make someone feel better about the people in their club, or point fingers at people who aren't. It's a distraction.

The unvaccinated (if they aren't adopting better protection and isolation measures) are more likely to catch and spread COVID, and are more likely to end up in hospital if they do.

So it's a fact that the unvaccinated are now a disproportionally large part of the current load (in the first world), and are prolonging the pandemic "crisis" state of the disease here. "Blame" is not the right word.

... the currently available vaccinations aren't going [to] stop covid from becoming endemic.

Of course not. But if more were vaccinated, we'd arrive at the endemic state sooner and with less overall harm.

As far as children go, are you saying you want to vaccinate them not to protect them, but to protect someone else? I can understand that argument, but is it really an ethical one? I have reservations on that, unless you're very honest with parents that this the real reason you're encouraging it.

It does both, no? Why wouldn't we vaccinate kids?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

No, it's not illogical to blame the unvaccinated for the spread of the virus. The unvaccinated spread it at approximately twice the rate of the vaccinated and, when the vaccinated do catch it, they are much less likely to spread it and/or be hospitalized, and especially to end up in an ICU.

You, Sir, have absolutely no idea who is spreading the virus.

The problem, sir, is that you've made an assumption about the spread that isn't valid, and this was the point I was trying to make. While an unvaccinated person could THEORETICALLY have a higher virus load, this isn't required in order to spread the virus. The problem with all the finger-pointing is that it introduces things that seem like they might be true, but aren't.

As far as infection rates and hospitalizations, I expect both of those to diminish in the coming weeks, regardless of public policy. This would follow the pattern that we've seen everywhere else.

So at this point in time, if you want to get vaccinated, it's a great idea. But please stop blaming the unvaccinated for the spread, as there is no evidence that this is the case.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

The unvaccinated are hijacking our hospitals.

I think this is a little more of a valid argument, but isn't it ALWAYS the case that sick people are filling hospitals? And it's a slippery slope kind of argument that people's health is based on their life choices.

Obesity is a major health factor. Are we next going to require people to lose weight, as this is a major factor in covid deaths?

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I think this is a little more of a valid argument, but isn't it ALWAYS the case that sick people are filling hospitals? And it's a slippery slope kind of argument that people's health is based on their life choices.

Obesity is a major health factor. Are we next going to require people to lose weight, as this is a major factor in covid deaths?

This is how these debates or exchanges of ideas get away from the central point, that 10% of people are unvaccinated, yet that 10% occupy 77% of the hospital beds occupied by Covid-19 patients.

That's the whole problem, but let's look at obesity.

There are 38 million people in Canada.

3.38 million are unvaccinated.

Here are the statistics on obesity in Canada:

In 2018, 26.8% of Canadians 18 and older (roughly 7.3 million adults) reported height and weight that classified them as obese.1 2 Another 9.9 million adults (36.3%) were classified as overweight – bringing the total population with increased health risks due to excess weight to 63.1% in 2018.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../00005-eng.htm

So, why aren't unvaccinated people in hospitals with Covid-19 outnumbered by more of the 17.3 million overweight and obese vaccinated people?

If Canada was at 95% vaccinated, there probably would be no healthcare crisis.

People should get vaccinated for the greater good.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Agreed that severity of many disease is unpredictable in individuals. Indeed historically common ailment such as common influenza's, common colds, and pneumonia's have been severe in some people, and have caused deaths. But there have been no large scale shut downs or restrictions over these. So why any need for severe restrictions that we have seen for COVID? The overall death rate during the COVID phenomenon has changes little compared to previous years.


The restrictions are certainly not few. They are many and very severe. People have lost jobs and businesses. Careers have been lost or put on hold. Livelihoods have been lost. Students have been kept from schools. These are major disruptions that have solved nothing. Yet the perception of a raging pandemic persists.


Looking beyond one's nose reveals ineffective over reactions to a problem that is no worse than common seasonal infections.

I don’t disagree with you. I also believe there was a terrible overreaction largely caused by ceding control to public health doctors. Running a country on the “ precautionary principle “ is a very bad idea.

History will not be kind to public health over this episode

[GordMay]

“Public outrage over the unvaccinated is driving a crisis in bioethics”

The pandemic has triggered a new debate over what used to be a settled principle of bioethics — that you don't treat patients differently based on past behaviour that may have contributed to their condition.
"Usually, bioethics is all about protecting and promoting the right of each patient to make their own decisions," Vardit Ravitsky* said. "And all of a sudden we find ourselves in a situation where the common good should sometimes be prioritized, and that has caused some unprecedented disagreements within the bioethics community."

Much more ➥ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pan...cron-1.6319844

* Vardit Ravitsky teaches bioethics, at the Université de Montreal, and Harvard Medical School, and is president of the International Association of Bioethics.