Quebec mandates chaperones for unvaxxed in big box stores

[tall73]

The situation has changed. You know this - you know that the vaccine reduces hospitalization.

I agree that studies show that the vaccine reduces hospitalizations from the virus.

However, I already presented data that prior infection does so even more.

Why should the government be able to pressure you into a medical procedure that is not warranted, when that procedure can have side effects?

People should be evaluating their risk with their doctor, not having to deal with government manipulation.

 

[tall73]

Here, there is the false implication that you cannot buy food without a chaperone. This is, of course, untrue - you can buy food with no restrictions whatsoever, just not in a giant box store.

Yeah, think that through. The unnvaxxed have a higher risk of hospitalization. This measure incentivizes them all to go to smaller stores, concentrating together in smaller spaces.

You really think congregating the most at risk together, in smaller areas, is the way to prevent more hospitalizations?

Mixed reactions to Quebec's big-box stores requiring vaccine passports | Montreal Gazette

In an interview Monday, Dr. Benoît Barbeau, a virologist at the Université du Québec à Montréal, said though it’s possible there is transmission in larger stores, he believes they’re less risky than smaller, more contained spaces. In that sense, he feels the measure remains largely punitive in nature.

So your government, in an attempt to punish the unvaccinated, with the goal of reducing hospitalization, has likely driven more at risk people to more risky environments. And in so doing they chose winners and losers in business, cost companies money and headaches, and endangered front line workers.

You sure you want to defend that?

 

[whatbogsends]

You are, of course, mispresenting the situation. The "goalposts have been moved" for very good reasons. And you guys know this. The situation has changed. You know this - you know that the vaccine reduces hospitalization. But, to preserve the fiction that you have been misled, you re-package this all as if you misled.

You were not.

The vaccine appears to reduce Covid-specific hospitalization. It's overall impact on hospitalization is still being assessed.

The fiction was that these vaccines would prevent spread and be durable. What has changed is that those deceptions became exposed, so they've moved the goalposts because they still desperately want vaccine passports.

 

[whatbogsends]

It is manifestly absurd to compare what is happening in Quebec to the Holocaust.

I suggest you tell that to the holocaust survivors who say otherwise instead of claiming to speak for them all.

 

[expos4ever]

It's overall impact on hospitalization is still being assessed.

Misleading - there is at least some preliminary data.

• Current figures suggest that vaccines offer 30 to 40 percent protection against infection and around 70 percent protection against hospitalization without boosters.
• Newer data is confirming that a third dose increases antibody production and boosts effectiveness against infection to around 75 percent, and 88 percent for severe disease.

 

[expos4ever]

The fiction was that these vaccines would prevent spread and be durable. What has changed is that those deceptions became exposed, so they've moved the goalposts because they still desperately want vaccine passports.

False.

This is one of the many disingenuous tactics deployed by those on your "side" of this issue.

You are trying to trick the readers into believing that because the vaccine is not very good at preventing spread now, we were misled in the past when we were told they would prevent infection. This is not the case - the virus has mutated so that the vaccines are now relatively ineffective against transmission; they were indeed effective at preventing spread in the past.

 

[tall73]

There is ZERO proof that having vaccine reduces hospitalizations, despite the oft-repeated phrase as constantly reiterated in the media.

The vaccine appears to reduce Covid-specific hospitalization. It's overall impact on hospitalization is still being assessed.

Misleading - there is at least some preliminary data.

• Current figures suggest that vaccines offer 30 to 40 percent protection against infection and around 70 percent protection against hospitalization without boosters.
• Newer data is confirming that a third dose increases antibody production and boosts effectiveness against infection to around 75 percent, and 88 percent for severe disease.

This thread is not a generic thread to discuss the effectiveness of the vaccine at preventing hospitalization, etc. Keep your posts related to the measures of Quebec referenced in the OP.

 

[tall73]

I do not have an informed opinion on the merits of this or that measure (I live in Quebec, by the way).

Then perhaps you should spend some time informing yourself so you can discuss the topic of this thread. This thread is about the measures in Quebec.

This measure incentivizes the unvaccinated to go to smaller stores, concentrating together in smaller spaces.

Do you think congregating the most at risk together, in smaller areas, is the way to prevent more hospitalizations?

Mixed reactions to Quebec's big-box stores requiring vaccine passports | Montreal Gazette

In an interview Monday, Dr. Benoît Barbeau, a virologist at the Université du Québec à Montréal, said though it’s possible there is transmission in larger stores, he believes they’re less risky than smaller, more contained spaces. In that sense, he feels the measure remains largely punitive in nature.

Quebec, in an attempt to punish the unvaccinated, with the goal of reducing hospitalization, has likely driven more at risk people to more risky environments. And in so doing they chose winners and losers in business, cost companies money and headaches, and endangered front line workers.

 

[whatbogsends]

Misleading - there is at least some preliminary data.

• Current figures suggest that vaccines offer 30 to 40 percent protection against infection and around 70 percent protection against hospitalization without boosters.
• Newer data is confirming that a third dose increases antibody production and boosts effectiveness against infection to around 75 percent, and 88 percent for severe disease.

That's not about "overall hospitalization", it's about "Covid hospitalization".

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This is FALSE.

From FactCheck:

Users are falsely claiming that there is no proof that COVID-19 vaccines reduce severity of illness and hospitalization for those infected with the coronavirus.

It's constantly repeated, but it's not true. 30% so far are vaccinated cases in the hospital. And they count those with one, and sometimes two (but not booster) with the unvaccinated in various jurisdictions. Not again pulling out all the sources I posted earlier about this.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

. One post keeps conflating with text of another. Trying to make it go away.

 

[expos4ever]

Don't forget that your government coerced people into a permanent health decision that CANNOT be rolled back.

You are making this sound ominous when it is really isn't: the standard vaccines that children are required to get cannot be "rolled back" either.

And they did this even when the existing science showed that those who had prior infection had protection.

Both incomplete and besides the point. As is always the case with you guys, key information is intentionally withheld - in this case that the best protection is conferred upon those who have both been previously infected and who are vaccinated.

But more to the point - you must surely know that it is impossible to test people as they enter a store. So testing is not a practical option, whereas checking vaccination status is.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Let's look at actual surveys, shall we?

An Ipsos poll published Monday and conducted exclusively for Global News showed that 67 per cent want the government to impose further measures on the unvaccinated population.
------
The results of a national survey released today by Maru Public Opinion delves into the attitudes of Canadians towards the one-in-ten (9%) of their neighbours nationally who admit they are currently unvaccinated, The study also details some of the driving elements of why that group remains unvaccinated. Canadians view the unvaccinated as responsible for overwhelming the health care system (48%), people who are holding Canadians back from having a new normal life (40%), endangering society (36%), misguided conspiracy theorists (36%), good people with legitimate reasons/concerns (27%), reckless (26%), super-spreaders of the virus (17%), and/or heroes for free speech/choice (12%). In addition, A majority (54%) say they don’t have sympathy for the unvaccinated who get seriously ill or die from COVID (46%).

Note that while 48% blame the un-vaxxed, only 12 % consider the unvaxxed to be martyrs for "freedom".

And another Canadian poll says about half want workplace mandates and the other half does not. So what? People disagree. Stay in your own lane. Most are vaccinated there anyway. And you can bet a whole lot of them already had the virus so they have natural immunity.

With almost 70% of eligible Canadians fully vaccinated and close to 75% partially vaccinated, half (48%) of Canadians responded yes to the question “Should employers require their employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine booster shot?,” according to a new survey from The Harris Poll, commissioned by Express Employment Professionals.

 

[expos4ever]

In fact, I noted they are already developing the next means of coercion, though they know that this wave will be short lived. If they require an annual booster, or combined flu and covid shot, or combined vaccine passport in the future, do you think they won't continue using these now tried and true methods to secure compliance?

If the pandemic is still overwhelming the health care system then, yes, I suspect they will.

How is this coercion any more than rules against drunk driving are "coercive"?

 

[tall73]

You are making this sound ominous when it is really isn't: the standard vaccines that children are required to get cannot be "rolled back" either.

That is because it is ominous in my book. Permanent changes to your body are not small decisions.

And vaccines are not required where I live, though for school attendance some could be. Some choose to home school to avoid that.

My kids did get vaccines, because the risk/benefit added up for them. If the risk/benefit of a treatment is compelling then you shouldn't have to mandate it. The ethical principle of informed consent for treatment is important.

Both incomplete and besides the point.

Incomplete in that it is not 100 percent? It protects better than the vaccine. Neither is 100 percent.

Protection against hospitalization was found to be superior to the vaccine.

As is always the case with you guys, key information is intentionally withheld - in this case that the best protection is conferred upon those who have both been previously infected and who are vaccinated.

How did I leave out that information when the chart I posted showed that?

You asked for evidence it was at least equal to the vaccine. I posted evidence that for hospitalization it was superior.

The increased benefits of another dose were quite small, and carried more risk than for those who had no prior infection.

But more to the point - you must surely know that it is impossible to test people as they enter a store. So testing is not a practical option, whereas checking vaccination status is.

Well your earlier objection is that they couldn't determine it, and I noted they did and do already in this vax. pass.

And now you object that they cannot test people at the door.

They wouldn't need to. If they counted prior infection that would all be handled in the existing pass as well, just as vaccination is, and just as medical exemption is.

In fact, they already do that, but require an additional dose.

If someone wants the marginal benefit of the additional dose, they should be able to. But some may not want to take on additional risks for very little benefit, especially since the risk after prior infection is higher than those naive to the virus by some studies.

And the other doses could go to countries where they have no doses at all. That was one of the reasons study was done on natural immunity to begin with. In a pandemic with limited vaccine resources you have to prioritize who gets the doses.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is because it is ominous in my book. Permanent changes to your body are not small decisions.

Seems like an argument for the dangers of school lunches. Once you try the tater tots, you can never undo that decision.

I know, I know, we're all supposed to buy into the fear, uncertainty, doubt about vaccines which underlies the "ominous" implication. But really, most people making these decisions know that the risks are incredibly minute. Might want to try a more fact based approach rather than attempting to appeal to emotion.

 

[tall73]

If the pandemic is still overwhelming the health care system then, yes, I suspect they will.

How is this coercion any more than rules against drunk driving are "coercive"?

Unless Quebec is far out of step with other regions, if you are drunk driving they don't apply increasing pressure by limiting whether you can go to a shop to buy cannabis, or whether you can go to certain sections of a big box store over 1,500 square. They likely impose rather more direct measures. Moreover, they probably don't put the burden of policing drunk drivers on business owners and front line employees. The two situations are completely different.

Prohibitions against drunken driving impacts only certain people in specific situations. Not everyone drinks. Not everyone drives. Even those who are both in the category of those who drive and those who drink can take steps to avoid driving after drinking such as calling a cab or drinking at home. On the other hand These vaccination measure are aimed at the vast majority of the population over 13. Negative commands are usually less intrusive than positive ones. Drunk driving laws prohibit only a specific activity which is not necessary to engage in. A requirement to receive vaccination is a positive command that requires people to do a specific thing.

Broad measures like this are going to get more blowback. Do you place any limit on what the government can tell you that you must do for your own good? Would you approve mandated exercise programs for all citizens over 13?

Also, they differ in effects of compliance. Someone refraining from drinking and driving would not have negative effects. However, a percentage, albeit small, will have negative impacts from taking the vaccine.

Another difference is that informed consent is an important ethical principle with medical procedures. People should be able to determine whether they will accept the risk/benefit calculation of medical interventions.

 

[tall73]

I know, I know, we're all supposed to buy into the fear, uncertainty, doubt about vaccines which underlies the "ominous" implication. But really, most people making these decisions know that the risks are incredibly minute. Might want to try a more fact based approach rather than attempting to appeal to emotion.

Did I say fear or uncertainty? No, I said informed consent. That ethical principle is important in medical procedures for a reason.

And I did note a fact-based reason some might object. If someone has prior infection, which I posted studies showing is as protective or more than vaccination, then they should not be required to take on additional risks for very little benefit. I noted the study that showed that those with prior infection had a 54 percent increase in side effects resulting in hospitalization. But per the data they are getting a very modest boost over their existing protection for that increased risk. And those doses could be used for people in other countries who have no protection, reducing hospitalizations there.

But again, this is not a discussion of the merits of vaccines. I have stated I think they reduce hospitalizations from COVID based on the data. And I think for many they may be a good option.

This is a discussion of the policy of Quebec, which is misguided.

If the goal is to reduce hospitalization then incentivizing the most at risk to go to smaller stores where there is a greater risk of infection is a poor way to do that.

And placing the burden of enforcement on businesses and front line workers is also not dictated by science.

 

[KCfromNC]

Did I say fear or uncertainty?

No, you just used the word ominous - others might be excused for thinking that the goal of that word was to raise fears.

And I did note a fact-based reason some might object. If someone has prior infection, which I posted studies showing is as protective or more than vaccination, then they should not be required to take on additional risks for very little benefit.

Your opinion is noted. Others have a different opinion, for example, one based on the facts showing that vaccinations reduce reinfection rates in people who previously had covid.

 

[tall73]

No, you just used the word ominous - others might be excused for thinking that the goal of that word was to raise fears.

I said it was ominous for the government to coerce a health procedure without informed consent. It is a permanent change to your body that they are pressuring you to get.

I didn't say that Vaccines themselves are ominous of their nature.

You then changed it to fear about vaccines:

I know, I know, we're all supposed to buy into the fear, uncertainty, doubt about vaccines which underlies the "ominous" implication.

No, it is not fear about vaccines. It is fear about the erosion of the ethical principle of informed consent, and the government thinking it can control people's lives that is ominous.

Your opinion is noted. Others have a different opinion, for example, one based on the facts showing that vaccinations reduce reinfection rates in people who previously had covid.

Seeing as I did not say they don't, and have been in multiple threads saying they do, and even giving specific rates reported from studies at given times against given variants, your statement is misrepresentation.

Governments coercing is ominous.

Governments coercing while only picking the science they prefer to look at, and ignoring natural immunity which also has been found to reduce infection and hospitalization is also ominous.

The topic of this thread is the Quebec government action. If you wish to discuss the vaccines, take it to a different thread.