Canadian COVID-19 News

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is a great topic.

It also encompasses viewing health care holistically, and not just as hospital stays and prescriptions.

If someone's vaccination status is your business, then their general health care (diet, exercise, whether they smoke, whether they drink, etc) is also your business.

Shall we institute co-pays based on lifestyle into the health care system? Shall we reward folks who have healthy habits? Shall we tax junk food? After all, if the public is paying for health care, a person's general health status is the public's business.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

G&M: What Newfoundland can teach the rest of Canada about vaccinating kids

Quote:
When it comes to vaccinating children against the coronavirus, no province comes close to Newfoundland and Labrador. It leads the country, with nearly 75 per cent of kids aged 5 to 11 at least partly vaccinated, well above the national average, and nearly twice the rate of provinces such as Alberta.

...Ms. Abbott says that has a lot to do with trust.

That's one way of putting it.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

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.

The evidence has been quoted a number of times in this thread. Feel free to go back and read through it.

You can't spread the disease if you don't catch it. It has been shown that the vaccines are over 90% effective against the earlier variants and 75% effective against Omicron two weeks after vaccination, declining to 35% after ten weeks. So let's say a 50% average. I've been through this before but, for your elucidation, I'll repeat it: Imagine a dinner party, five people present: one is infected (it doesn't matter if he or she is vaccinated or not), two are vaccinated, two are not. After a few maskless hours of eating and drinking in close proximity, it is likely that the two unvaccinated will become infected, and one of the two vaccinated will become infected. Those three infected will leave the party with the possibility of infecting others - twice as many unvaccinated as vaccinated - and so, as I originally postulated, the unvaccinated are twice as likely to spread the disease as the vaccinated.

Of course, for any one dinner party the results may differ, but for. let's say a million such dinners (as at Thanksgiving or Christmas for example) the averages will work out more or less as I have suggested: two million new infections among the unvaccinated, a million among the vaccinated - and a million vaccinated escaping uninfected. Twice as many unvaccinated sick as vaccinated suggests that the unvaccinated, as a group (not as individuals) are twice as likely to spread the disease as the vaccinated.

This thread is intended for Canadian sailors, or sailors living in Canada, discussing the Covid situation here. You don't show a location. Are you in Canada? Are you Canadian? Are you a sailor? If not perhaps you would like to go elsewhere - or start your own thread.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

This is a great topic.

It also encompasses viewing health care holistically, and not just as hospital stays and prescriptions.

If someone's vaccination status is your business, then their general health care (diet, exercise, whether they smoke, whether they drink, etc) is also your business.

Shall we institute co-pays based on lifestyle into the health care system? Shall we reward folks who have healthy habits? Shall we tax junk food? After all, if the public is paying for health care, a person's general health status is the public's business.

Hmmm, your mention of co-pays, something that doesn't exist in Canada, suggests that you are not Canadian. May I ask why you are on this thread which, as it's title suggests, is for Canadian sailors?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

The evidence has been quoted a number of times in this thread. Feel free to go back and read through it.

You can't spread the disease if you don't catch it. It has been shown that the vaccines are over 90% effective against the earlier variants and 75% effective against Omicron two weeks after vaccination, declining to 35% after ten weeks. So let's say a 50% average. I've been through this before but, for your elucidation, I'll repeat it: Imagine a dinner party, five people present: one is infected (it doesn't matter if he or she is vaccinated or not), two are vaccinated, two are not. After a few maskless hours of eating and drinking in close proximity, it is likely that the two unvaccinated will become infected, and one of the two vaccinated will become infected. Those three infected will leave the party with the possibility of infecting others - twice as many unvaccinated as vaccinated - and so, as I originally postulated, the unvaccinated are twice as likely to spread the disease as the vaccinated.

Of course, for any one dinner party the results may differ, but for. let's say a million such dinners (as at Thanksgiving or Christmas for example) the averages will work out more or less as I have suggested: two million new infections among the unvaccinated, a million among the vaccinated - and a million vaccinated escaping uninfected. Twice as many unvaccinated sick as vaccinated suggests that the unvaccinated, as a group (not as individuals) are twice as likely to spread the disease as the vaccinated.

This thread is intended for Canadian sailors, or sailors living in Canada, discussing the Covid situation here. You don't show a location. Are you in Canada? Are you Canadian? Are you a sailor? If not perhaps you would like to go elsewhere - or start your own thread.

Originally Posted by Scorpius

The evidence has been quoted a number of times in this thread. Feel free to go back and read through it.

You can't spread the disease if you don't catch it. It has been shown that the vaccines are over 90% effective against the earlier variants and 75% effective against Omicron two weeks after vaccination, declining to 35% after ten weeks.

Those numbers are about effectiveness against getting the disease serious enough to be hospitalized, not against getting or spreading the disease.

Sadly, a lot of people have a faulty understanding that those effectiveness numbers are about contracting covid, but that's not the case.

A lot of the current spread is among the vaccinated.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Scorpius

Hmmm, your mention of co-pays, something that doesn't exist in Canada...

I was only offering a way to share more cost with people with lifestyles you deem more costly to society. You can set it up differently if you like, but I think it's preferable to denying people care.

I'm not advocating this. I'm just saying that pushing people to the back of the line for care in this instance is rather inconsistent with the overall philosophy of "universal" unless you assess a cost to all lifestyles.

[Mike OReilly]

The primary mechanism of spread of this virus is through the air; mostly at the particulate to aerosol levels. While asymptomatic individuals can spread it through normal exhalation, the principle mechanism is through forceful exhalation; i.e coughing and sneezing and the like. So, it is symptomatic virus carriers who are the primary sources of spread.

Since vaccines are proven to greatly reduce the likelihood of developing the disease, vaccinated individuals are far less likely to be spreading it, even when infected*.

* One can carry the virus, but not develop the disease. No vaccine prevents infection; that's what masks and distancing does. The vaccines greatly reduce the likelihood of developing the disease. And they are even better at reducing the severity of the disease.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

If someone's vaccination status is your business, then their general health care (diet, exercise, whether they smoke, whether they drink, etc) is also your business.

Shall we institute co-pays based on lifestyle into the health care system? Shall we reward folks who have healthy habits? Shall we tax junk food? After all, if the public is paying for health care, a person's general health status is the public's business.

Well, in the insurance business, that's already the case. If you have an unhealthy lifestyle or co-morbidities, or just plain age, you pay more for health or life insurance.

This is a pandemic; it's not normal times. During times of crisis, we often have to adopt public measures, like rationing or blackouts in an oil/energy crisis.

Anyway, if someone chooses to be unvaccinated against COVID at this time, it's their choice... but I'm not going to celebrate it. Their choice has consequences, including an expectation that they should be doing more to keep themselves isolated at this time, and that they might not enjoy the same freedom of movement as the vaccinated. And this is just while we're in a pandemic situation... which we both agree is hopefully ending soon.

You must have a big heart to be sympathetic to the butthurt unvaccinated, it does you credit... Anyway in a few short months, they will cease to be pariahs.

[Scorpius]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Those numbers are about effectiveness against getting the disease serious enough to be hospitalized, not against getting or spreading the disease.

Absolutely not true. The vaccinated are 50% less likely to catch Omicron - far higher for the other variants - than the unvaccinated

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

A lot of the current spread is among the vaccinated.

Absolutely true. I'll even go further: most of the spread of Omicron is from the vaccinated - but only because, at least here in Canada, the vaccinated FAR outnumber the unvaccinated. If 80% are vaccinated (as they are here in Canada) and 20% are not, and the vaccinated are, overall, half as likely to catch and therefore spread the disease as the unvaccinated, of 100 people, 60 people can catch and spread the disease: 20 of them unvaccinated, and 40 of them vaccinated. That does not say that a vaccinated person is twice as likely to spread the disease. What it does mean is that only 60 people can spread the disease instead of the 100 that could do so if we were all unvaccinated. And if we could get our vaccination rate up to 100% (unlikely) we would reduce that number to 50 - a laudable goal.

I notice you have ignored my question about whether you are Canadian (or in Canada) or not. A response would be appreciated.

[Mike OReilly]

On the question of personal responsibility and vaccine status, there is a slippery slope here. Personal lifestyle choices definitely do result in different burdens on our healthcare systems. So we have to be careful about how we proceed here.

But it is a false equivalency to compare obesity to Covid-19. My choice (as much as it is a choice) to be fat does not affect your choice to be thin. But my choice to put myself at a higher risk of contracting, and therefore potentially spreading, Covid-19 absolutely DOES affect those around me. This is especially so during a pandemic or even epidemic.

This is what the anti crowd can't seem to grasp; there is a collective responsibility. Your choice about putting yourself at greater risk is NOT just about you -- not unless you live completely by yourself, in which case I say, fill-your-boots! Do whatever you want.

But if you want to have the privileges that come with living as part of a collective, then you also need to accept the responsibilities. This reality is expressed in all manner of group rights and responsibilities; from driving on the road, walking on a sidewalk or paying taxes.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The primary mechanism of spread of this virus is through the air; mostly at the particulate to aerosol levels. While asymptomatic individuals can spread it through normal exhalation, the principle mechanism is through forceful exhalation; i.e coughing and sneezing and the like. So, it is symptomatic virus carriers who are the primary sources of spread.

Since vaccines are proven to greatly reduce the likelihood of developing the disease, vaccinated individuals are far less likely to be spreading it, even when infected*.

* One can carry the virus, but not develop the disease. No vaccine prevents infection; that's what masks and distancing does. The vaccines greatly reduce the likelihood of developing the disease. And they are even better at reducing the severity of the disease.

Most of this post just isn't true. I'd like you to post your source. Make sure it's a recent one.

Do some reading on it. This vaccine by it's very design doesn't prevent infection. It does reduce symptoms, but you can spread covid without symptoms.

One of the main reasons this virus is so contagious is that it's spread by aerosol. Doesn't require sneezing or coughing to spread. Just breathing.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Most of this post just isn't true.

What isn't true? Everything I've stated is current scientific fact. It might change as we learn more, but this is the state of knowledge.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But it is a false equivalency to compare obesity to Covid-19. My choice (as much as it is a choice) to be fat does not affect your choice to be thin. But my choice to put myself at a higher risk of contracting, and therefore potentially spreading, Covid-19 absolutely DOES affect those around me. This is especially so during a pandemic or even epidemic.

Your choice to be obese DOES affect me, as I have to subsidize your health care. When you're taking up a bed in a hospital due to obesity, you're not all that different from someone who chooses not to get vaccinated. Your choices have affected your risk.

And if you do just a little more research, I think you'd find a pretty good cross section between covid victims in the ICU and obesity.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

What isn't true? Everything I've stated is current scientific fact. It might change as we learn more, but this is the state of knowledge.

So, it is symptomatic virus carriers who are the primary sources of spread.


I haven't seen any study to support this. I don't even know how that could be proven, and it's the basis for your entire belief system, and criticism of the unvaccinated.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Your choice to be obese DOES affect me, as I have to subsidize your health care. When you're taking up a bed in a hospital due to obesity, you're not all that different from someone who chooses not to get vaccinated. Your choices have affected your risk.

Yes... that's the slippery slope that we've already discussed. So it sounds like you ARE in favour of triaging Covid-19 patients so they get less priority. And we should be taxing them more.

See, this is where most of us disagree with you. But it makes sense in a private health insurance regime where profit, not general well being, is the primary driver.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

And if you do just a little more research, I think you'd find a pretty good cross section between covid victims in the ICU and obesity.

If you actually did any research you'd learn that this oft-repeated talking point of the anti-crowd is not true. Current research is NOT finding a correlation between severe Covid-19 outcomes and obesity. In fact, I posted some of this research over in the https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3559767 thread.


Tell us how you think respiratory viruses spread ... do they teleport? Is it magic? Please, enlighten us. This is basic biology.