Quebec mandates chaperones for unvaxxed in big box stores

[tall73]

My position is some measures should be allowed for the good of society. That is why we don't object to laws requiring food handlers to wash their hands. The good of the action outweighs the imposition of the requirement.

Food handlers take on a specific task that provides a service. Hand washing imposes no permanent change to their person.

This is far broader. I do not give the government permission to decide what medical procedures I undergo for what they perceive to be my wellbeing.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

But a government should likewise not be able to fine and penalize their citizens for existing in their natural state. You should be able to consent to medical treatment.

Belk said: ↑

I disagree. I believe that we as a society should have laws that contribute to societal good. I think you believe the same thing. Our disagreement is on where the line is drawn.

I stated my line in the quote. You should be able to consent to medical treatment.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Escalating consequences for non-compliance is coercion. Saying someone cannot go to certain stores, indicating fines for non-compliance, etc. are means of trying to get people to do something they are not already inclined to do. Medical procedures are to be free from coercion, influence, duress, etc. The person should choose the procedure on an understanding of the merits.

As to electing someone else, apparently the people of Quebec managed to influence those currently in office on at least one proposed measure by their "discontent".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/vax-tax-nixed-1.6334828

The tax, which was announced in January by the premier, would have imposed a monetary penalty on Quebecers who are eligible but who refuse to get their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Legault says while his government has a bill ready to go, he's decided not to table it after seeing "growing discontent" in the population.

Community advocates, bioethicists and other experts raised concerns about the proposal, saying that more education was needed, instead of punitive measures. Others questioned the legal ramifications, saying the proposed tax could run afoul of the Canada Health Act.

No it is still not coercion and claiming that it is only makes you seem overwrought. Protesting the tax and getting it repealed is more the way things should have gone, the tax was the wrong way.
That said, the tax will eventually be levied by insurance companies who are well within their right to charge for differences in clients. Though Canada does not have the stupid problem that we have with individual insurance.

 

[tall73]

No it is still not coercion

It is most certainly coercion to try to get someone to undergo a medical treatment by imposing negative measures until they comply.

 

[Belk]

Food handlers take on a specific task that provides a service. Hand washing imposes no permanent change to their person.

This is far broader. I do not give the government permission to decide what medical procedures I undergo for what they perceive to be my wellbeing.

It is not for your well being, it is for others.

 

[Belk]

tall73 said: ↑

But a government should likewise not be able to fine and penalize their citizens for existing in their natural state. You should be able to consent to medical treatment.

Belk said: ↑

I disagree. I believe that we as a society should have laws that contribute to societal good. I think you believe the same thing. Our disagreement is on where the line is drawn.

I stated my line in the quote. You should be able to consent to medical treatment.

You don't need to consent. You just need to consent if you wish to interact with the rest of us.

 

[tall73]

It is not for your well being, it is for others.

No, it is not for the well being of others to charge a fee, or to incentivize the unvaxxed to shop in a more compressed area where they can be infected more easily, as the measured discussed here did.

Nor is it science to require those who already had the virus to undergo vaccination when they already have protection on par with, or better, than those with the vaccine.

It is coercion.

 

[tall73]

You don't need to consent. You just need to consent if you wish to interact with the rest of us.

Where I live there are no such arbitrary measures. They got pushed back on.

And there would be no reason to comply with such unscientific coercive measures as chaperones for unvaxxed so that you expose a front line worker, penalize businesses who have to pick up the cost, and incentivize unvaxxed to go to smaller stores where there is more risk of infection and resulting hospitalization.

 

[Captain Ahab]

If only we could trade out the sanctimonious authoritarians who embrace overbearing nanny state tyranny for the Canadians who don’t want experimental drugs (which are nowhere near as effective as originally advertised) shoved down their throats. We’d all be happier. Stop the hate! Separate!!

 

[Belk]

No, it is not for the well being of others to charge a fee, or to incentivize the unvaxxed to shop in a more compressed area where they can be infected more easily, as the measured discussed here did.

Nor is it science to require those who already had the virus to undergo vaccination when they already have protection on par with, or better, than those with the vaccine.

It is coercion.

Where I live there are no such arbitrary measures. They got pushed back on.

And there would be no reason to comply with such unscientific coercive measures as chaperones for unvaxxed so that you expose a front line worker, penalize businesses who have to pick up the cost, and incentivize unvaxxed to go to smaller stores where there is more risk of infection and resulting hospitalization.

Regardless of your opinion on the subject, that is the reason for the measure. It is not for your benefit but the rest of society.

 

[tall73]

Regardless of your opinion on the subject, that is the reason for the measure. It is not for your benefit but the rest of society.

Saying that is the rationale for a measure does not mean it accomplishes that.

Telling people who visit a store of 1,500 square meters that they have to have a chaperone is not demonstrated to protect others. It does put costs on business. It does put front line workers more at risk, and possibly in danger from people who are uncooperative.

And it incentivizes the unvaxxed to all go to smaller venues, where they can more easily spread any virus present.

I quoted an epidemiologist earlier in Quebec who noted smaller stores were more likely to foster transmission, and said this measure is more punitive.

 

[Belk]

Saying that is the rationale for a measure does not mean it accomplishes that.

Telling people who visit a store of 1,500 square meters that they have to have a chaperone is not demonstrated to protect others. It does put costs on business. It does put front line workers more at risk, and possibly in danger from people who are uncooperative.

And it incentivizes the unvaxxed to all go to smaller venues, where they can more easily spread any virus present.

I quoted an epidemiologist earlier in Quebec who noted smaller stores were more likely to foster transmission, and said this measure is more punitive.

His opinion is noted. It does not change the fact that this was intended for the greater good. Not as some sort of tyrannical imposition.

 

[tall73]

His opinion is noted. It does not change the fact that this was intended for the greater good. Not as some sort of tyrannical imposition.

You have a pretty low standard for these government measures. They don't have to be effective, scientific, considerate of business owners and front-line workers, or care about ethical principles such as informed consent. They can even push un-vaccinated people into small confines and potentially increase infection and strain on the health care system, as long as they meant their coercion for the greater good, according to them.

But apparently even in Quebec the leaders have started to understand that poor measures can lead to discontent.

Legault says while his government has a bill ready to go, he's decided not to table it after seeing "growing discontent" in the population.

 

[Belk]

You have a pretty low standard for these government measures. They don't have to be effective, scientific, considerate of business owners and front-line workers, or care about ethical principles such as informed consent. They can even push un-vaccinated people into small confines and potentially increase infection and strain on the health care system, as long as they meant their coercion for the greater good, according to them.

But apparently even in Quebec the leaders have started to understand that poor measures can lead to discontent.

Legault says while his government has a bill ready to go, he's decided not to table it after seeing "growing discontent" in the population.

I have made no mention of my view on this measure. I'm simply pointing out that it is not malicious. That is the entirety of my input on this particular article.

 

[tall73]

I have made no mention of my view on this measure. I'm simply pointing out that it is not malicious. That is the entirety of my input on this particular article.

Your opinion on their motives is noted. It doesn't change the unscientific measures, or the trampling on the principle of informed consent.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Apparently the leadership in Quebec are coming around to your point of view!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/vax-tax-nixed-1.6334828

The tax, which was announced in January by the premier, would have imposed a monetary penalty on Quebecers who are eligible but who refuse to get their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Legault says while his government has a bill ready to go, he's decided not to table it after seeing "growing discontent" in the population.

Yep, things have changed a LOT since my last response on January 26. Tens of thousands are now protesting, and the truckers protesting have grown exponentially.