OT: Covid-19 (Part 55) Cold & Snowy Edition

[McGuires Corndog]

The one thing I do think should be asked of the government is if they expect 100% vaccine compliance. If they don’t think that’s possible, than what threshold are they looking to reach. Id like to know

I’ve been asking this question for months.

I get the situation evolves with variants, but regardless of that we’ve never had even a muddy water plan.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

"I don't think you have the right to make the decision for me"

SO much irony in this post.

It would've been, except I explicitly showed you that the two groups are in direct conflict. One group isn't going to be happy.

Yeah definitely, alot of people are not happy and trust me, it is not the pro mandate people.

70 percent of Canadians support passports. 60 percent support a tax. And something like 85% of Canadians are vaccinated.

The unvax'd aren't happy? Too bad.

My argument stands, you have no reason to be more afraid of a unvaxxed individual over a vaccinated, if you want to hate on them, that's fine, but the virus does not give a horses ass if you are vaccinated or not. That is my point.

You keep telling me how I should think. Sorry, I can think for myself. I don't want you on a plane with me if you aren't vaccinated. At least 70 of Canadians feel the way I do. If you're upset about it, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Some have made the decision not to vaccinate. Maybe it's cause they're scared or they don't want somebody telling them what to do, or they're too lazy... I don't really care. That's up to them. If they want to avoid it, cool.

But there are consequences that go along with that choice. You're choosing to put yourself and the rest of us at greater risk, not only through spread but by overwhelming our hospitals. The rest of us shouldn't have to bare the burden of your decision. That's on you, not me.

 

[SOLR]

This is very naive. If you think we don't have a serious misinformation problem in 2022, you're being very naive. Misinformation is legitimately dangerous.

I'm naive? get off your high horse for a second and realize that you are on a forum expressing your views - irony of your comment should resonate?

 

[SOLR]

Believe it or not, objective facts DO exist. Some things are demonstrably false. The earth is either flat or it's not.

If we choose an example of a flat earther, why would this person deserve a platform? Does this person really deserve to be heard? I don't think so. They are not arguing on facts, they are spreading misinformation.

Rogan puts on people who have been thoroughly discredited. Whether he agrees with them or not, he's providing them with a bullhorn to trumpet all kinds of weird shit and people listen to it. That's irresponsible and I don't think it's wrong to call it out and say he shouldn't have a show.

That doesn't mean he can't have his own opinion or speak about it to anyone who asks but Spotify doesn't owe him a spot.

Yeah because anyone who disagrees with you is a flat earther who spreads misinformation, and YOU get to decide what is misinformation and information

No problem there at all...

Spotify signed Rogan, they have a contract with him. They can do what they want, but I'm sure that contract comes with platform-breaking penalty fees.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yeah because anyone who disagrees with you is a flat earther who spreads misinformation, and YOU get to decide what is misinformation and information

I stopped reading there.

 

[SOLR]

I didn't miss a damn thing. You still don't seem to understand that you don't have a right to a show on Spotify.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between being called out and being cancelled. Not only that, but there's nothing authoritarian about a private company cancelling a show if he's broadcasting misinformation that can lead to people getting hurt. Personally I think Spotify should probably get rid of this guy. Unfortunately, he brings in too many listeners which is why he's still on there. And that's a whole other problem in and of itself...

I understand completely, not sure why you are so emotional about it - one can understand something and go beyond a first level of analysis. Maybe not in a discussion with you, but that's your issue, not mine.

I was not saying that cancelling Rogan was authoritarian, where did you read that? Again inventing a reality...not the first time, not the last.

What I said is that in many ways corporations can be authoritarian. When perfectly serious, well-meaning, experts, creators can have significant problems with the Youtube censorship department, options that should come to market are not.

 

[SOLR]

I stopped reading there.

Awesome, you can't read anyway.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

What was not explained enough is that with free of charge health care, we also have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to contribute to the ease of access. What could apply in US does not necessarily suit our system.

It's another reason to act responsibly and get the shot for sure. I'm glad we've seen Canada getting the shot in the numbers we have. It's a good sign that people are still listening to the science and are cognizant of the risks. My hope is that the numbers continue to go up. Some will obviously dig their heels in. Not much we can do there, but I was surprised to see how supportive most Canadians have been in regards to a tax. 60 percent is a pretty huge number considering.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I understand completely, not sure why you are so emotional about it - one can understand something and go beyond a first level of analysis. Maybe not in a discussion with you, but that's your issue, not mine.

I was not saying that cancelling Rogan was authoritarian, where did you read that? Again inventing a reality...not the first time, not the last.

What I said is that in many ways corporations can be authoritarian. When perfectly serious, well-meaning, experts, creators can have significant problems with the Youtube censorship department, options that should come to market are not.

Awesome, you can't read anyway.

This is what you wrote:

"And in this case you've got somebody who's helping to spread misinformation on a virus that's killed millions of people." - This is a very authoritarian argument, that pretends that the population is not smart enough for the media to even present contradicting opinions. The limits to free speech are nowhere near what Joe Rogan is doing.

Yeah, I can read just fine. Thanks.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'd say that should depend on the level of "inconvenience". And whether that inconvenience is violating either party's individual rights. Not on the size of the groups.

Fair enough, omit what I said about the size of the groups.

What are the consequences of the decision to not get a shot? Is it more inconvenient for the person being told to stay home? Or is it more inconvenient for the person who'd be working next to somebody who's higher risk?

I think the argument still stands.

 

[Natey]

I don't think I've made any argument that's parallel to your example. Simply that the "greater good" does not take precedent over human rights. It's just not how it works.

Whether or not lockdowns and travel restrictions are a violation of those rights within Canada will be decided by the courts, based mostly on the necessity of those measures relative to the risks of not having them.

I'm not claiming they will find them to be violations, I'm hesitant to predict what they'll find.

And what is the risk of not having them? The greater good for the majority of people/Canada. Exactly what I said. If it's a pandemic, it most certainly is for the greater good. Hence reasonable limits.

 

[pown]

It would've been, except I explicitly showed you that the two groups are in direct conflict. One group isn't going to be happy.

70 percent of Canadians support passports. 60 percent support a tax. And something like 85% of Canadians are vaccinated.

The unvax'd aren't happy? Too bad.

You keep telling me how I should think. Sorry, I can think for myself. I don't want you on a plane with me if you aren't vaccinated. At least 70 of Canadians feel the way I do. If you're upset about it, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Some have made the decision not to vaccinate. Maybe it's cause they're scared or they don't want somebody telling them what to do, or they're too lazy... I don't really care. That's up to them. If they want to avoid it, cool.

But there are consequences that go along with that choice. You're choosing to put yourself and the rest of us at greater risk, not only through spread but by overwhelming our hospitals. The rest of us shouldn't have to bare the burden of your decision. That's on you, not me.

Maybe its because they are not at risk and are the ones to chose what they put into their body, crazy thought. Sure, the old and frail should be vaccinated, ofcourse. That is what is putting a strain on our health system, not the young and healthy.

Like myslef, I have had covid (mild cold like symptoms) and I am a healthy young male under 30, I'm not putting you at risk or myself. The vaccine is a absolutely not a 1 glove fits all solution.

I'm not scared at all, I just make calculated risks for my own personal well being, if this was a vaccine that would prevent the spread and infection then my argument would fail, but that is absolutely not the case here. Ill keep my healthy heart thank you very much.


Lol I wouldnt believe those polls for a second, but to each their own.

 

[Natey]

It is not a choice if not getting it threatens your job, your way of life, treating you as a 2nd class citizen, paying extra taxes, being discriminated against. That is no longer in ANY category of being a choice. Which is why we are seeing whats happening.

Your job and line of work is a choice.

Don't care about the 2nd class citizen part. The unvaccinated aren't thinking about others, why should we?

 

[GrandBison]

It's another reason to act responsibly and get the shot for sure. I'm glad we've seen Canada getting the shot in the numbers we have. It's a good sign that people are still listening to the science and are cognizant of the risks. My hope is that the numbers continue to go up. Some will obviously dig their heels in. Not much we can do there, but I was surprised to see how supportive most Canadians have been in regards to a tax. 60 percent is a pretty huge number considering.

I don't think it will go up. Omicron propagation within vaccinated people made people forget that vaccination saved the system and kept businesses open in the delta wave. We're citizens like hockey fans, Stanley cup final was few months ago and it doesn't count anymore.

 

[Canadienna]

And what is the risk of not having them? The greater good for the majority of people/Canada. Exactly what I said. If it's a pandemic, it most certainly is for the greater good. Hence reasonable limits.

It's actually a little more subtle than that, as we certainly can't do anything just because it's the majority's view of the greater good. It has to reach a certain threshold of risk to the country as a whole, and that risk has to be demonstrably justified by the government.

It's similar to what you're saying, but not quite the same, as we can't just legislate rights away any time there is a public benefit, only in the most necessary times - hence why I was saying that will be the debate - how necessary were the restrictions and how strong was the government's justification.

Edit: Just as a point of interest. Brian Peckford - A former MP and signing member of the 1982 constitution act in Canada - is challenging the federal government by way of lawsuit on these exact grounds. What chance he has at success, I'm really not able to discern.

But he's the only living man today who helped create the charter. His interpretation is that these criteria were not adequately met.

 

[Natey]

It's actually a little more subtle than that, as we certainly can't do anything just because it's the majority's view of the greater good. It has to reach a certain threshold of risk to the country as a whole, and that risk has to be demonstrably justified by the government.

It's similar to what you're saying, but not quite the same, as we can't just legislate rights away any time there is a public benefit, only in the most necessary times - hence why I was saying that will be the debate - how necessary were the restrictions and how strong was the government's justification.

The greater good doesn't just mean the majority of people say this.. so it goes. It clearly goes with what would happen to the entire country if more people became sick, more people became hospitalized, and more than just our health care broke down. I was simplifying my message - I thought my point would still be clear. My bad.

 

[OnTheRun]

I'm not scared at all, I just make calculated risks for my own personal well being, if this was a vaccine that would prevent the spread and infection then my argument would fail, but that is absolutely not the case here. Ill keep my healthy heart thank you very much.

It used to be a vaccine that would significantly prevent the spread and infection, that's before omicron. Yet you are not vaccinated. The truth is you didn't give a f*** yesterday, you don't give a f*** today and you won't give a f*** tomorrow. Stop playing the victim card and assume your choice.

 

[SOLR]

Haha please with the non-stop 'authoritarian' victimhood act

I wanted to react to that separately.

This is quite an easy and cowardly accusation to make on a forum. You don't know me, so you can think what you want. Doesn't make it true.
My judgment is just telling me that I'm reading a lot of authoritarian justifications for foregoing rights. Moreover I'm sensing a lot of aggression for just challenging those justifications, as they should be challenged. This is not because I disagree with many of the measures, I'm all about solutions, but I also know that at some point we have to return to trying to have proper cost analysis for our decisions. And maybe, just maybe, saving the next 5 people from Covid - cost us more pain in depression, loss of productivity, economic misery, others health causes deaths etc. I happen to think that Rogan's format is healthy, it's not perfect, but it's healthy. It shines a light that can be analyzed, spark discussions, etc. Sure it has downsides, like everything else. Sure many are dumb enough to take as 1st-party knowledge, are we so sure that removing Rogan from the chessboard will not create a bigger monster? (it would).

You won't change the audience you are so worried about by completely removing what they watch, because their existence is rooted in biology, education system failures, economic disparities, etc. What are we going to do, remove from the public sphere anything they look at? Until there is only the state to decide what we must all watch? And then you get state drones, that we know full well what is their consequence. It's like we are learning no lessons at all as time pass.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Maybe its because they are not at risk and are the ones to chose what they put into their body, crazy thought. Sure, the old and frail should be vaccinated, ofcourse. That is what is putting a strain on our health system, not the young and healthy.

That's not the case though. The vaccines don't offer 100 percent protection but they offer something like 60+ percent with the third shot.

There will always be some level of risk when you open up. But the idea is to minimize that risk while keeping things open. The unvaccinated represent a much greater risk to the vaccinated than the other way around.

Like myslef, I have had covid (mild cold like symptoms) and I am a healthy young male under 30, I'm not putting you at risk or myself. The vaccine is a absolutely not a 1 glove fits all solution.

If you haven't had your shots? Yes you are...

I'm not scared at all, I just make calculated risks for my own personal well being, if this was a vaccine that would prevent the spread and infection then my argument would fail, but that is absolutely not the case here. Ill keep my healthy heart thank you very much.

The risks you're taking isn't just for yourself... you're taking that risk for others. It's been posted a few times in the past few threads we've had here. The booster provides significant protection. So yes, by not taking it you are a risk to others.

Lol I wouldnt believe those polls for a second, but to each their own.

And this is kind of the heart of the problem isn't it? You hear something you don't like... you just dismiss it.

There's no reason to doubt them. Just like there's no reason to doubt the covid stats.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I don't think it will go up. Omicron propagation within vaccinated people made people forget that vaccination saved the system and kept businesses open in the delta wave. We're citizens like hockey fans, Stanley cup final was few months ago and it doesn't count anymore.

Taxes would help though. I don't think it will happen, but again I was surprised to see the support they got.

It's actually a little more subtle than that, as we certainly can't do anything just because it's the majority's view of the greater good. It has to reach a certain threshold of risk to the country as a whole, and that risk has to be demonstrably justified by the government.

It's similar to what you're saying, but not quite the same, as we can't just legislate rights away any time there is a public benefit, only in the most necessary times - hence why I was saying that will be the debate - how necessary were the restrictions and how strong was the government's justification.

Edit: Just as a point of interest. Brian Peckford - A former MP and signing member of the 1982 constitution act in Canada - is challenging the federal government by way of lawsuit on these exact grounds. What chance he has at success, I'm really not able to discern.

But he's the only living man today who helped create the charter. His interpretation is that these criteria were not adequately met.

I would vigorously defend the passport idea and I like the idea of a tax. But to your point, that doesn't mean that we need to agree with absolutely everything the governments have done. I think a lot of it has been sloppy and inconsistent. Quebec I think went too far over the X-mas break and there are definitely criticisms you can make - there always will be.

But as far as the general principle of limiting where the unvaccinated can go, I'm all for it.

 

[SOLR]

This is what you wrote:

"And in this case you've got somebody who's helping to spread misinformation on a virus that's killed millions of people." - This is a very authoritarian argument, that pretends that the population is not smart enough for the media to even present contradicting opinions. The limits to free speech are nowhere near what Joe Rogan is doing.

Yeah, I can read just fine. Thanks.

Nope. You are just playing quote tag as always.

You are writing a moral justification, then you are surprised that I reply with a moral justification.
Then you proclaim that I don't understand that Rogan is not owe a platform because spotify is a private company, knowing full well this is a different level of analysis.

I respond to the correct level of analysis of your argument, it's a perfectly sane thing to say:
1) On moral grounds, I don't think Rogan should be removed from the platform for what amounts to exercising free speech.
2) On legal grounds, Spotify can do what they want.

When you make more moral statements that are deeply authoritarian such as: "And in this case you've got somebody who's helping to spread misinformation on a virus that's killed millions of people" - a statement that if you had to validate in court would be considered libellous because you would have to prove intent. Don't be surprised if someone says no, your argument is hollow.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

I wanted to react to that separately.

This is quite an easy and cowardly accusation to make on a forum. You don't know me, so you can think what you want. Doesn't make it true.
My judgment is just telling me that I'm reading a lot of authoritarian justifications for foregoing rights. Moreover I'm sensing a lot of aggression for just challenging those justifications, as they should be challenged. This is not because I disagree with many of the measures, I'm all about solutions, but I also know that at some point we have to return to trying to have proper cost analysis for our decisions.

You seem to be very concerned about encroaching authoritarian tendencies. That's a scary word! How do you view these measures as different from say, speed limits? In both cases the gvt is placing restrictions because it believes it'll decrease the amount of deaths overall. Calling it 'authoritarian' is alarmist and/or sensationalist. But providing good restrictions is one of the core responsibilities of government.

And maybe, just maybe, saving the next 5 people from Covid - cost us more pain in depression, loss of productivity, economic misery, others health causes deaths etc.

You're making the case that the tradeoff in restrictions is no longer worth it. I think preventing deaths should be the primary goal. It's a very straightforward goal and, I should hope, something that inherently has value for everyone. I also think you're endorsing a system where people (i.e. you?) gets to decide how many people is "OK" to die, and that makes me uncomfortable. Who gets to decide? Why is it you? If you don't belong to one of those vulnerable groups, I'm sure that's a coincidence, right?

But anyway for the sake of argument I'll hear you out. How do you quantify "economic misery"? Is there some kind of scale or measurement system you know about that can help here? I'm just not sure what we're even measuring here, besides vague feelings.

Finally, is it at all possible that you don't care at all about good tradeoffs, but selfishly you just want things to reopen for your own personal benefit? I'm sure there are a LOT of folks out there who are arguing in bad faith about tradeoffs etc when in reality they just wanna get back to the Olive Garden and go back to their own normal lives. That's why you're gonna meet with pushback with these kinds of proposals. But you can dress it up as 'omg authoritarianism!!' if you want to

 

[SOLR]

You seem to be very concerned about encroaching authoritarian tendencies. That's a scary word! How do you view these measures as different from say, speed limits? In both cases the gvt is placing restrictions because it believes it'll decrease the amount of deaths overall. Calling it 'authoritarian' is alarmist and/or sensationalist. But providing good restrictions is one of the core responsibilities of government.

You're making the case that the tradeoff in restrictions is no longer worth it. I think preventing deaths should be the primary goal. It's a very straightforward goal and, I should hope, something that inherently has value for everyone. I also think you're endorsing a system where people (i.e. you?) gets to decide how many people is "OK" to die, and that makes me uncomfortable. Who gets to decide? Why is it you? If you don't belong to one of those vulnerable groups, I'm sure that's a coincidence, right?

But anyway for the sake of argument I'll hear you out. How do you quantify "economic misery"? Is there some kind of scale or measurement system you know about that can help here? I'm just not sure what we're even measuring here, besides vague feelings.

Finally, is it at all possible that you don't care at all about good tradeoffs, but selfishly you just want things to reopen for your own personal benefit? I'm sure there are a LOT of folks out there who are arguing in bad faith about tradeoffs etc when in reality they just wanna get back to the Olive Garden and go back to their own normal lives. That's why you're gonna meet with pushback with these kinds of proposals. But you can dress it up as 'omg authoritarianism!!' if you want to

It’s authoritarian when the rules are being drawed without opposition, outside of the democratic system, for example. And that clearly happened in the last 24 months. You could make a great case to defend the first 6 months, but at some point the parliament must decide, not Legault. I’m so alarmist that the government is being sued for this as we speak…

1) I made no case that the trade offs is no longer worth it. I made the case that the parliament has not studied the matter and made a call that represent me as a citizen. Legault made that call, with who knows what data (authoritarianism…)
2) Economic misery: People can’t eat because inflation is getting the food bills higher on a daily basis? Surely locking down everything doesn’t help, it might not contribute as a direct cause to the problem, but it doesn’t help either. The curfew does close some retail location, jobs that many are counting on to eat.
3) Now you are calling me selfish, if anything I’m one of the person who benefits from all this chaos…so I’m anti selfish I guess. There is no honour in getting richer while society is suffering. I’m in Bali right now - because I can, very few can. Before I left, I didn’t go out of the house for 2 years, working from home, being super prudent because of my girlfriends mom who is nearly 90.