What's new
By:

Coronavirus

Al-O-Meter said:
Keep in mind that this is a labor action. Without negotiation of any kind, the people of Canada have unilaterally imposed a condition of employment on some equipment operators and those equipment operators have elected to refuse to operate the equipment they are responsible for in a prescribed manner until the people of Canada rescind that imposed condition.

The solution to this labor disagreement you think should be pursued is to take guns and shoot the laborers who have set up barbeques and bouncy castles for kids. Is that correct? Is there any particular outfit you think the government forces who are doing all this shooting should wear? Maybe something black with jackboots and skulls to look extra nice for all the cameras streaming live video to the world?

This kind of labor protest is not common in North America but it happens all the time in Europe. Usually it is farmers who protest pricing or restrictions by parking harvesting equipment and huge tractors on the roads. There have been at least 2 years I know of they even blocked off the Tour de France. I’m sure the video of Canadian goons shooting laborers to break this action will play well with European viewers. It might even land Canadian leaders in The Hague because unlike the United States, I do not believe Canada is immune from Hague prosecutions.

…or Canada could go with option (B) and wait out the truckers hoping they dwindle to a manageable size.
Click to expand...
Eh, they dont have to follow my method. Using kids as human shields was a smart move. Protesters stemming from the george floyd incident should have done the same. In fact they are already moving to other methods.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford declared a state of emergency on Friday in response to the "siege" and "illegal occupation" of Ottawa, and in Windsor.

The Ontario premier will convene cabinet to enact orders that will make it "crystal clear" that is illegal and punishable to block and impede the movement of goods, people and services along critical infrastructure. This includes protecting international border crossings, 400-series highways, airports, ports, bridges and railways, in addition to the movement of ambulances, medical services, public transit, and movement on municipal and provincial roadways and pedestrian walkways

Fines for noncompliance will be a maximum financial penalty of $100,000 and up to a year imprisonment. The province will also provide additional authority to consider taking personal and commercial licenses away from those who do not comply.

www.yahoo.com

Ontario Premier Doug Ford declares a state of emergency in Ontario in response to 'siege' and 'illegal occupation'

Ontario Premier Doug Ford declared a state of emergency on Friday in response to the "siege" and "illegal occupation" of Ottawa, and in Windsor.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Maybe some folks should follow the rittenhouse strategy and go there armed and hope they get threatened and then shoot some people and become celebs.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The leverage there is with what they're protesting with. It is a lot easier to move 50 hipsters than it is to move 50 semi trucks with trailers especially when the local towing companies are refusing to cooperate with law enforcement. There are over a thousand trucks. This isn't something local law enforcement is capable of handling. The only options Canada has are to (A) give in, (B) wait the trucks out in hopes they dwindle away to a manageable size, or (C) use the Canadian military against Canadian citizens. So far it appears Canada is going with option (B).
Click to expand...
They actually are going with option D now.
 
Avery said:
Haven’t seen that. You have a link? Not finding anything myself.

Have a 4 hr flight with them late March so would definitely like to not wear one if possible.
Click to expand...

I work for them. Was told by our general manager today.
 
Avery said:
Gotcha. Envious of those flight benefits, hope you get to take advantage of them from time to time.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, it's really why I'm there. My family has been flying more than I have but I've done some cool short trips. Planning to travel for nearly two straight months starting early April.
 
Douchebag K said:
retrospective study that i have shown you before shows negligible difference between those previously infected and those previously infected and who have then had a vaccine. Why would you take another medicine that makes no difference. Where are the long term studies on things like antibody dependence or other effects from taking repeated booster shots ??
Click to expand...
The CDC study under discussion

Just compare the ratios in the last two columns. You can see a large difference between them. Being vaccinated after having the disease significantly improves your chances of avoiding re-infection.

Moved discussion to this thread.
 
Idiotic Minivan wants me to debate the finer points with him after he said that getting the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting COVID.

That's as disingenuous as it gets.

Prove that you're worth having a discussion with instead of saying intentionally misleading things and then falling back on **** you said some other time that was also misleading. It's almost as if obfuscating the facts is beneficial to your objective
 
One Brow said:
The CDC study under discussion

Just compare the ratios in the last two columns. You can see a large difference between them. Being vaccinated after having the disease significantly improves your chances of avoiding re-infection.

Moved discussion to this thread.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes::rolleyes: lololololol those are "large" differences ??????????????? dude you just try way too hard to twist things to your preconceived ideas.

Just face up that your natural immunity denial is unfounded and unscientific. Move on
 
Douchebag K said:
:rolleyes::rolleyes: lololololol those are "large" differences ???????????????
Click to expand...
Large enough that you still cut your chance of reinfection in half. Large enough that you have a significantly reduced viral output if you do get the disease again.

Douchebag K said:
dude you just try way too hard to twist things to your preconceived ideas.
Click to expand...
Projection.

Douchebag K said:
Just face up that your natural immunity denial is unfounded and unscientific.
Click to expand...
When you can show it is, I'll gladly face up to it. There is nothing better than learning something new. Take those numbers and show me how I've misinterpreted them, and I'll learn something new. It's a win-win for me.
 
Natural immunity means that you already have to have been sick. Natural immunity is just fine. But if the goal is to not risk death in the first place, natural immunity for a person who doesn't already have it is the absolute worst option possible by infinity.

Since the vaccine is extraordinarily safe and has varying effectiveness against different strains, but reduces risk of infection, severity of infection, and possibility of retransmission vs all strains, it is the best possible option for everyone, including people who have natural immunity already.

So yay for people who have had COVID and didn't die. Good for them. They should probably still get the vaccine and all recommended boosters.

Making comments about how the vaccine doesn't do anything, or doesn't stop infection, is intentional misleading and is clearly agenda driven.
 
Gameface said:
Natural immunity means that you already have to have been sick.
Click to expand...
Yes. @Douchebag K is arguing that people who have already been sick don't need the vaccine, I am arguing that it is proper to expect them to take it even after having been sick. Both of us support immunization for those who have not had covid19. The former is certainly a closer call than the latter.
 
One Brow said:
Large enough that you still cut your chance of reinfection in half. Large enough that you have a significantly reduced viral output if you do get the disease again.


Projection.


When you can show it is, I'll gladly face up to it. There is nothing better than learning something new. Take those numbers and show me how I've misinterpreted them, and I'll learn something new. It's a win-win for me.
Click to expand...


so .. please explain to me what figures you are using to suggest that you have reduced your risk of reinfection by half ??? In the plainest simple numbers you can.

for example if you have a disease you have a 2 in 1000 chance of contracting and you take a medication that may in a sample see a 1 in 1000 chance of contraction .. i'm guessing you see that as a doubling / halving of the odds yes ?? Do you really think that a 0.001 % chance in statistically significant to a 0.002 % chance ?? And do you account for different age groups which is the key factor ?? I've repeatedly said that if you are of a certain age, health status, weight then sure consider your need for vaccination. Dont see how there is a basis to "expect" a young healthy person to take an additional vaccine, that decision should be weighed up between them and their doctor.

I also think you're now being a bit loose with the term "immunized" given the success rate of such vaccine. It really is more like a therapeutic agent at this stage.
 
Gameface said:
Natural immunity means that you already have to have been sick. Natural immunity is just fine. But if the goal is to not risk death in the first place, natural immunity for a person who doesn't already have it is the absolute worst option possible by infinity.

Since the vaccine is extraordinarily safe and has varying effectiveness against different strains, but reduces risk of infection, severity of infection, and possibility of retransmission vs all strains, it is the best possible option for everyone, including people who have natural immunity already.

So yay for people who have had COVID and didn't die. Good for them. They should probably still get the vaccine and all recommended boosters.

Making comments about how the vaccine doesn't do anything, or doesn't stop infection, is intentional misleading and is clearly agenda driven.
Click to expand...

Dude if you stopped foaming at the mouth and tried thinking you'd realise you're not even arguing about the same thing as i've been talking about. The vaccine is pretty safe, but again there is no medium to long term safety data, it is literally still under emergency provision with data being collected in real time, the manufacturer is protected against legal action from side effects and there are some infrequent but serious reactions. There is little to no data on what repeated boosters may or may not do to your body's immune system.

The vaccine isn't the "best possible" option for everyone, young healthy non-overweight people who've previously had Covid have almost nothing to be gained and do run a slight but well established risk of vaccine injury. Unwell people, people over a certain age, people overweight with metabolic compromise absolutely should. It's called individualised medical care, risk / benefit analysis by your doctor.

What agenda are you on about ??
 
One Brow said:
Yes. @Douchebag K is arguing that people who have already been sick don't need the vaccine, I am arguing that it is proper to expect them to take it even after having been sick. Both of us support immunization for those who have not had covid19. The former is certainly a closer call than the latter.
Click to expand...
The woman I know who lost her husband to COVID, before a vaccine was available, also had COVID at that time. She has MS, so you might have worried more about her than her husband (I was since she's the person I've known since I was 2) but she did alright. She got the vaccine and then some time later got COVID, just a few weeks ago. She had a mild case for a second time.
Douchebag K said:
Dude if you stopped foaming at the mouth and tried thinking you'd realise you're not even arguing about the same thing as i've been talking about. The vaccine is pretty safe, but again there is no medium to long term safety data, it is literally still under emergency provision with data being collected in real time, the manufacturer is protected against legal action from side effects and there are some infrequent but serious reactions. There is little to no data on what repeated boosters may or may not do to your body's immune system.

The vaccine isn't the "best possible" option for everyone, young healthy non-overweight people who've previously had Covid have almost nothing to be gained and do run a slight but well established risk of vaccine injury. Unwell people, people over a certain age, people overweight with metabolic compromise absolutely should. It's called individualised medical care, risk / benefit analysis by your doctor.

What agenda are you on about ??
Click to expand...
The vaccine is the best possible option. No foam in mouth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top