Canadian Money Forum banner
6661 - 6680 of 6721 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
To be fair, minor side effects are massively underreported. I did not report my sore arm and mild fatigue from first Pfizer shot nor the 2-3 days of muscle soreness, headache, etc. from Moderna 2nd shot.
I don't disagree about the reporting of minor effects. For serious negative effects the level of reporting would be much higher.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,887 Posts
There are countries in which 74% of people are unvaccinated. You can look at their shape and you have an answer to your question
In Alberta more people died from vaccine than from COVID among under 20 year olds.
There is plenty of reasons to junk vaccines - although for vast majority of people they are still a good choice.
I couldn't find this stat (Alberta vaccine deaths) by searching, do you have a source?

I did find this source for Canada-wide data, which says Canada-wide, there have been 195 deaths reported post-vaccination, but of those, 73 are unlikely to be linked to the vaccine, 75 could not be assessed due to insufficient information, 41 are still under investigation, and 6 had a diagnosis of TTS, which is the blood clotting associated with the vaccines. So there are only 6 known deaths across Canada from the vaccine. But all of them were 19 and older (age range 19-88 years).

There is 1 death in Alberta under 20 years old from Covid.

Canada-wide, there have been 17 deaths under 20 years old from Covid.

It is conceivable that the Canada-wide vaccine deaths are all in Alberta and that more than one of them was of a 19-year-old, and hence your stat is true. But I find it EXTREMELY unlikely considering that Canada-wide, there have been almost 3 times as many deaths from Covid under 20 years old than OVERALL deaths from vaccine side effects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
I couldn't find this stat (Alberta vaccine deaths) by searching, do you have a source?

I did find this source for Canada-wide data, which says Canada-wide, there have been 195 deaths reported post-vaccination, but of those, 73 are unlikely to be linked to the vaccine, 75 could not be assessed due to insufficient information, 41 are still under investigation, and 6 had a diagnosis of TTS, which is the blood clotting associated with the vaccines. So there are only 6 known deaths across Canada from the vaccine. But all of them were 19 and older (age range 19-88 years).

There is 1 death in Alberta under 20 years old from Covid.

Canada-wide, there have been 17 deaths under 20 years old from Covid.

It is conceivable that the Canada-wide vaccine deaths are all in Alberta and that more than one of them was of a 19-year-old, and hence your stat is true. But I find it EXTREMELY unlikely considering that Canada-wide, there have been almost 3 times as many deaths from Covid under 20 years old than OVERALL deaths from vaccine side effects.
The blood clotting reports were connected to AZ vaccine. I don't believe their any cases of blood clotting connected to the mRNA vaccine. There seems to be a remote risk of heart inflammation for younger men with Moderna. Most of the reported cases of heart inflammation ended up being a temporary effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
I couldn't find this stat (Alberta vaccine deaths) by searching, do you have a source?

I did find this source for Canada-wide data, which says Canada-wide, there have been 195 deaths reported post-vaccination, but of those, 73 are unlikely to be linked to the vaccine, 75 could not be assessed due to insufficient information, 41 are still under investigation, and 6 had a diagnosis of TTS, which is the blood clotting associated with the vaccines. So there are only 6 known deaths across Canada from the vaccine. But all of them were 19 and older (age range 19-88 years).

There is 1 death in Alberta under 20 years old from Covid.

Canada-wide, there have been 17 deaths under 20 years old from Covid.

It is conceivable that the Canada-wide vaccine deaths are all in Alberta and that more than one of them was of a 19-year-old, and hence your stat is true. But I find it EXTREMELY unlikely considering that Canada-wide, there have been almost 3 times as many deaths from Covid under 20 years old than OVERALL deaths from vaccine side effects.
So you completely ignore 75 who were not assessed and 41 still under investigation?
Media reported at least 2 vaccine related deaths in Alberta.
As you have noticed yourself there was only 1 death of person under 20 from COVID in Alberta throughout entire pandemic.
Yet the cry is to get 5 year olds to take it now.

There is no logic or stats behind the decisions being made.
You haven't replied to facts showing that decisions by government to segregate are detrimental to well-being of people in workplaces, planes, and trains. They are making your surroundings more dangerous for you by reducing amount of tested people.
Ignoring science and facts in the name of ideology
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,887 Posts
So you completely ignore 75 who were not assessed and 41 still under investigation?
Media reported at least 2 vaccine related deaths in Alberta.
As you have noticed yourself there was only 1 death of person under 20 from COVID in Alberta throughout entire pandemic.
Yet the cry is to get 5 year olds to take it now.

There is no logic or stats behind the decisions being made.
You haven't replied to facts showing that decisions by government to segregate are detrimental to well-being of people in workplaces, planes, and trains. They are making your surroundings more dangerous for you by reducing amount of tested people.
Ignoring science and facts in the name of ideology
And you haven't provided a source for your "fact". I can't converse further until you bring something to the table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,887 Posts
They are more then reasonable.
While I personally am vaccinated and think everyone should be. I don't think mandatory vaccinations like this are reasonable.

We decided it was okay to seize, abuse, torture and kill kids because they happened to be "Indians".
Or simply sterilize "undesirables", which still goes on today.

Sorry, but your right to bodily autonomy is among the highest rights.

In Alberta the ICUs are near capacity and 91% of the people in ICUs are unvaccinated. Other treatments and surgeries are being cancelled and postponed because unvaccinated people with covid are shutting down the healthcare system. The unvaccinated are creating a public health crisis. I have zero sympathy for your position. The public good is much more important right now than the ignorant and selfish position of the unvaccinated. Enough is enough.
So what, some people died as a result of their decisions.
That's their right, and yes people will likely die.

Personal medical autonomy is more important than other peoples lives. This is a well established concept in modern society.

At least those who choose not to get a COVID19 vaccine aren't intentionally killing people.

Every person who chooses to have an abortion is killing someone, and we're okay with that, it's the intentional killing of a human life.
Unintentional, and unlikely death from a person exercising the same right to exercise their right to bodily autonomy is far less troubling than intentionally taking an innocent persons life (at taxpayer expense)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
And you haven't provided a source for your "fact". I can't converse further until you bring something to the table.
Which one?
You really need a source? CBC has article that efficacy of Pfizer is 44% in stopping the spread?
False negative rate for COVID tests is also not a mystery.
Those aren't some shady numbers. They are well known and they clearly show that tested person is safer for their surroundings than vaccinated, untested person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6,670 · (Edited)
Those aren't some shady numbers. They are well known and they clearly show that tested person is safer for their surroundings than vaccinated, untested person.

FUD alert !

Test results are only valid until the tested person meets another person. They are a "moment in time" test.

People test negative when they get on aircraft and test positive when they arrive at their destination.

Testing is not a foolproof solution. Vaccines protect continuously until their effectiveness wanes.

Hence the need for booster shots.

To be meaningful, people would need to be tested every time they had an interaction with others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,695 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6,671 ·
Anti-vaxxers are causing unnecessary deaths by filling up hospitals and using strained resources. They are preventing needed surgeries and treatments.

I think we have reached a time when the un-vaccinated should be refused entry into regular hospitals and should be directed to special facilities to care for them.

As a society, we can't allow the reckless behaviour of a minority endanger the health and safety of the majority.

I don't care if they have a religious exemption. Let their church set up a hospital for them.

I don't want their religious nonsense spilling over into my life.

If there is a patient in the hospital who presents a danger to staff and other patients, the police are called to deal with them.

Why should we allow the unvaccinated to present a danger, just because it is invisible ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zipper and zinfit

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,887 Posts
Anti-vaxxers are causing unnecessary deaths by filling up hospitals and using strained resources. They are preventing needed surgeries and treatments.

I think we have reached a time when the un-vaccinated should be refused entry into regular hospitals and should be directed to special facilities to care for them.

As a society, we can't allow the reckless behaviour of a minority endanger the health and safety of the majority.
Yes we do, all the time.

I don't care if they have a religious exemption. Let their church set up a hospital for them.
I think it would be great if churches could set up a hospital, but they can't, because that would violate the Canada Health act.

I don't want their religious nonsense spilling over into my life.
It's not religion, some people nearly died due to the first shot, and don't want a second.

If there is a patient in the hospital who presents a danger to staff and other patients, the police are called to deal with them.

Why should we allow the unvaccinated to present a danger, just because it is invisible ?
Because unvaccinated people are not a danger, symptomatic people are.
Yo're like the person who says "every man is a rapist waiting to happen".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
Those aren't some shady numbers. They are well known and they clearly show that tested person is safer for their surroundings than vaccinated, untested person.

FUD alert !

Test results are only valid until the tested person meets another person. They are a "moment in time" test.

People test negative when they get on aircraft and test positive when they arrive at their destination.

Testing is not a foolproof solution. Vaccines protect continuously until their effectiveness wanes.

Hence the need for booster shots.

To be meaningful, people would need to be tested every time they had an interaction with others.
Foolproof? No. They are just significantly better than vaccinated person without a test.

Failure to catch a positive case is around 9% - that means 91% are caught.
Vaccine provides only 44% protection - that means 56% are unprotected.

Now, we have been in pandemic at over 500 days now and around 5% of Canadians caught it.
Therefore, a chance to be infected in 72h period is 0.05/500*3 => 0.03%.
Foolproof? No, but 99.97% effective.
If you add the 0.03% to the 9% false negatives, you have 9.03% chance.
With vaccination and no test you have 56% chance.
You are literally 6 times safer working or traveling with unvaccinated person that has been tested 72h ago than with vaccinated person.

Science is clear here. The policies introduced are anti-science.
They knowingly endanger Canadians. Government is science-denying
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Foolproof? No. They are just significantly better than vaccinated person without a test.

Failure to catch a positive case is around 9% - that means 91% are caught.
Vaccine provides only 44% protection - that means 56% are unprotected.

Now, we have been in pandemic at over 500 days now and around 5% of Canadians caught it.
Therefore, a chance to be infected in 72h period is 0.05/500*3 => 0.03%.
Foolproof? No, but 99.97% effective.
If you add the 0.03% to the 9% false negatives, you have 9.03% chance.
With vaccination and no test you have 56% chance.
You are literally 6 times safer working or traveling with unvaccinated person that has been tested 72h ago than with vaccinated person.

Science is clear here. The policies introduced are anti-science.
They knowingly endanger Canadians. Government is science-denying
I have tired hard to understand this confused analysis . I give up and go back to the Mayo Clinic analysis that says that among people who get covid the unvaccinated have a much higher risk of being hospitalized. John Hopkins says the the odds of vaccinated people who contact covid is 1 out of 11,000 and the odds are 1 out of 112 wth the unvaccinated. I will accept this over your contorted analysis . You could be right as the Mayo Clinic and JohnHopkins could be lying and be part of the globalists agenda .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,067 Posts
Foolproof? No. They are just significantly better than vaccinated person without a test.

Failure to catch a positive case is around 9% - that means 91% are caught.
Vaccine provides only 44% protection - that means 56% are unprotected.

Now, we have been in pandemic at over 500 days now and around 5% of Canadians caught it.
Therefore, a chance to be infected in 72h period is 0.05/500*3 => 0.03%.
Foolproof? No, but 99.97% effective.
If you add the 0.03% to the 9% false negatives, you have 9.03% chance.
With vaccination and no test you have 56% chance.
You are literally 6 times safer working or traveling with unvaccinated person that has been tested 72h ago than with vaccinated person.

Science is clear here. The policies introduced are anti-science.
They knowingly endanger Canadians. Government is science-denying
... your statistical analysis were amazing until your last paragraph/conclusion. If the government is science-denying, then what do you think they should be promoting? In their interest of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
I have tired hard to understand this confused analysis . I give up and go back to the Mayo Clinic analysis that says that among people who get covid the unvaccinated have a much higher risk of being hospitalized. John Hopkins says the the odds of vaccinated people who contact covid is 1 out of 11,000 and the odds are 1 out of 112 wth the unvaccinated. I will accept this over your contorted analysis . You could be right as the Mayo Clinic and JohnHopkins could be lying and be part of the globalists agenda .
You are looking at completely different thing.
Vaccines do prevent hospitalization. I agree with Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, et al.
That is not the question though.

The question is:
are you safer being around vaccinated person without a test or unvaccinated person with a test.
And the answer is the latter.
That's why if the argument is for public safety, then the next move should be to test everyone before entering workplace, plane, etc.
Removing people who are safer to their surroundings than those who are allowed in is counterproductive to public safety
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
... your statistical analysis were amazing until your last paragraph/conclusion. If the government is science-denying, then what do you think they should be promoting? In their interest of course.
I don't understand your last question.
Does it mean what should be the actual policy if they wanted to increase public safety? - Testing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
You are looking at completely different thing.
Vaccines do prevent hospitalization. I agree with Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, et al.
That is not the question though.

The question is:
are you safer being around vaccinated person without a test or unvaccinated person with a test.
And the answer is the latter.
That's why if the argument is for public safety, then the next move should be to test everyone before entering workplace, plane, etc.
Removing people who are safer to their surroundings than those who are allowed in is counterproductive to public safety
A world of constant testing would be a big pain in rear and testing has its problems. As a fully vaccinated person I need to be tested to fly. Rapid tests have a high failure rate. Who will pay for all this ongoing testing for the unvaccinated so they can continue to live in the little world of conspiracy theories.? The unvaccinated are free to make their choice but as we all know their are consequences when you make choices. By not vaccinating themselves they are electing to limit their own freedom. That is their choice. In terms of transmission of covid the overwhelming view of health experts is the unvaccinated creat a much higher risk. Again I am not in a position to disagree with the Mayo Clinic or John Hopkins experts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
A world of constant testing would be a big pain in rear and testing has its problems. As a fully vaccinated person I need to be tested to fly. Rapid tests have a high failure rate. Who will pay for all this ongoing testing for the unvaccinated so they can continue to live in the little world of conspiracy theories.? The unvaccinated are free to make their choice but as we all know their are consequences when you make choices. By not vaccinating themselves they are electing to limit their own freedom. That is their choice.
Either they pay for it or company pays for it. It is between them and employers.
Although I think for first couple government should pay - equal to the amount that vaccinations saved.
If you want to make workplaces safe from spread though, you should be testing both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

And even rapid tests have lower failure rate than vaccines do, so you are still making environment safer by letting unvaccinated tested people in. There is no basis to segregate people who are safer for their environment and leave those behind who are more of a danger to others.

The entire argument for making everyone's life in past 2 years a pain in the *** is to make society safer.
Now we segregate those who are safer and don't test those who introduce higher risk of infection to the workplace because it would be a pain in the ***?

The choice argument is a bit idiotic here. You are actually not allowing them to make a choice and become safer to their environment.
My entire argument is that they should be allowed to make a choice to become safer to the environment.
They become safer to their environment (and safer than vaccinated people) by getting tested regularly. Yet this is literally the choice you remove from them.
 
6661 - 6680 of 6721 Posts
Top