Re: Coronavirus
 

. On a purchase, there's no healthcare supplement/ penalty.

Healthcare and making moral judgments should be incompatible.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not so much a moral judgement as an economic one. Were healthcare systems to have unlimited resources (including staff) it would not be an issue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lol... yeah it would do that. last time I listened to it we were around a camp fire in the middle of a forest.... of course a few drinks were involved.... that was quite a a heeby jeeby expreience - perfect!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect this tax is a knee-jerk reaction by the QC government to force people to get vaccinated. Asking nicely isn't working. Bringing back the curfew on New Year's Eve was another such reaction.

I would not be surprised if Arruda has been made a fall guy for the recent string of cock ups. He's been doing a good job for the last two years, is highly respected and very popular in QC. Very much a poster boy. He wasn't calling the shots though. Things have gone awry and someone has to take the blame. It's also possible that he's had enough.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is different though....I am going to offer another perspective. I don't necessarily think a tax is the right approach, but something needs to be done.

Smoking or drinking health related issues don't cause hospital capacity issues, it doesn't ruin people business's and take their jobs through having to lockdown.... we are all paying the price for people choosing not to be vaccinated. 50% of all hospitalisations with covid now are unvaccinated people,.... why should a cancer patient miss out on life saving surgery because someone made the choice not to be vaccinated. They call it pro choice... I have no problem with that....but if they get sick, then that was their choice, A cancer sufferer doesn't get to make that choice... (except maybe a heavy smoker but thats only a fraction of cases), life saving surgeries are being cancelled and people are dying, thats not fair is it? you see what I mean?

The vaccine obviously works... so let it do its job in keeping people out of hospitals

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well yes, something should be done to protect the innocent from the unvaccinated. Maybe send them to Australia?

Re: Coronavirus
 

A couple of weeks ago the QC government introduced a requirement for vax passports to be shown at the govt-run booze and pot stores. The number of people booking first appointments shot up instantly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Facts beg to differ. Higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there because of negative impacts on health. So says the government. These taxes are jacked up using Health Canada recommendations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cig...pott-1.4410518

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-...dget-1.5393362

I think the case of cigarette taxes helping public healthcare isn’t as strong though. In the case of Covid vaccination we have a public health emergency, the system isn’t coping, so the logic is more obvious and sound.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doubt they’ll get it enforced in QC. But in the meantime the thought of an extra tax will probably have enough impact to push over the line the “I’m not an antivaxer, just hesitant” people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How you explain the number of vaccinated in hospital then? In Alberta, the split is almost 2/3 1/3 of vaccinated/unvaccinated in hospital and 82%/18% of new cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated (and, yes, I fully understand the argument that the numbers are skewed by the percentages of the population that are vaccinated/unvaccinated). See here: COVID-19 Alberta statistics | alberta.ca

However, if we are looking at where the burden falls that is placing the healthcare system under stress, it is not upon the unvaccinated.

You will have to explain to me how, if I have understood Quebec's proposal correctly, that taxing all unvaccinated is correct? For example, why should an unvaccinated person, that has not caught C-19, nor has had to use the medical system for anything related to C-19, have to pay a punishment tax?

If jurisdictions wish to make vaccination compulsory, enact that and be prepared to fight the likely legal battles that will come.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Alberta, from the above link:

• 66.2% of cases (207,953/314,272) since Jan 1, 2021 were unvaccinated or diagnosed within two weeks from the first dose immunization date
  
• 79% of hospitalized cases (10,219/12,929) since Jan 1, 2021 were unvaccinated or diagnosed within two weeks from the first dose immunization date
  

85% of over 12s are fully vaccinated.

Staggering.

Another option would be to introduce private healthcare. In the US many companies are charging unvaccinated workers more for their healthcare benefits.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That time period doesn't assist with the current situation as vaccines were not available to most in Alberta until well after June of 2021. Due to my condition, I was able to obtain mine far earlier than most. I obtained both of mine as early as I could (far sooner than most) and I did not receive my second shot until June 15, 2021.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fair enough. Let’s look at Tables 6 and 8 which give data over the last 120 days per 100K people. The difference in risk is 1 to 2 orders of mag, particularly for ICU usage. Still staggering.

Insurance premiums are typically based on risk rather than actual costs. Someone who is higher risk pays more even if he hasn’t totalled the car yet. And premiums can be driven by factors which are not self-inflicted (eg gender, age).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok, but if one is a high risk driver and doesn't want to pay the associated insurance cost, one can simply not drive, and they are not penalised for taking public transport instead.

One can't simply choose to opt out of paying taxes and paying into the health system, so this mandatory tax on the unvaccinated doesn't really offer a comparison to automobile insurance. Mandatory is the key word here - auto insurance is not mandatory to be a part of society, it is mandatory to drive a car.

The appropriate analogy would be requiring vaccination to participate in certain activities (restaurants, gyms, etc) since you can choose to opt out of those activities. But making it mandatory against penalty is not on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have mixed feelings on this and I note that what Quebec is talking about - at least what I heard on CBC radio - is not being charged for treatment but some contribution towards it. Perhaps enough to persuade someone to get vaccinated but not enough to ruin them.

I'm also aware of Siouxie's issue with her health - anyone up on what caused her strange banning, by the way? - and a member of my family has needle phobia so is not vaccinated. Enquiries regarding the nasal version draw a blank.

I feel there are two differences with the smoking/drinking/driving/skiing issue. For decades and more we've all been encouraged to smoke, drink, drive and ski etc. Millions of ££$$ and time and effort have been spent convincing us that these things are cool, sexy, attractive, exciting, essential, practical, safe, glamorous and so on.

It's been lessened regarding smoking, but it's still there.

Conversely we have never been encouraged to not get vaccinated or go out and try to get the virus in the same way, so it's easy to argue the vax issue is not like the other examples.

The second point here is one of a state of emergency. I know not every province/region/state/nation has necessarily declared it as such but these are not normal times and what we usually take for granted doesn't necessarily apply anymore.

It's not only times of war where some sacrifices have been made regarding what people are normally free to do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I understand the Quebec proposal, taxpayers who are high risk of covid can simply get vaccinated so they won’t be penalized for imposing unnecessary risk on the public healthcare system.

Avoidable taxes designed to alter risky behaviour are not particularly unusual. In this case its a very neat solution

Re: Coronavirus
 

I disagree. I do not think this will pass muster to a Charter challenge.

Who is liable if someone is forced to get vaccinated and then subsequently is one of the few people that have a critical reaction to the vaccine?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am willing to bet that there are those that are vaccinated that then attend crowded events and disobey other health restrictions (having more people around for Christmas lunch that were permitted to), just as I am willing to bet that there are those that are unvaccinated (because the choose to, rather than because of medical reasons) that have worked from home throughout, purchase their groceries online with curbside delivery and adhere to all health restrictions. You'll have to explain to me how one's conduct is so bad, when compared to the other's, that they deserve financial punishment.

Any class action lawyer worth their salt will find such an unvaccinated plaintiff and will make whatever government wishes to impose such measures look very foolish in Court particularly when, as I have shown above, the numbers causing issues with the healthcare system are vaccinated. If only the unvaccinated were in hospital, they may have more of a chance but that isn't the case. Tarring everybody with same brush doesn't work in most Courts that I have experience of.

Re: Coronavirus
 

you make some valid points but I'm still opposed to the idea. And not can I think of an alternative.

[QUOTE=Mordko;13087637]Facts beg to differ. Higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there because of negative impacts on health. So says the government. These taxes are jacked up using Health Canada recommendations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cig...pott-1.4410518

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-...dget-1.5393362

I think the case of cigarette taxes helping public healthcare isn’t as strong though. In the case of Covid vaccination we have a public health emergency, the system isn’t coping, so the logic is more obvious and sound.[/QUOTE

Still uncomfortable with the idea. As AC says someone could be unvaccinated and exercising caution so shoukd they be penalised?

Re: Coronavirus
 

May as well tax drug poisoning survivors while we are at it :(

Not sure what the rest of Canada is like, but here in BC, paramedics responded to a drug poisoning call every 15 minutes, 24x7x365 during 2021.

Cannot tax the dead, but overdoses are the leading cause of death in B.C. for people between 19 and 39 and the second-leading cause for people 40 to 59.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's possibly true although the numbers of each are likely so small as to be of no relevance. In particular, anti-vaxers appear to be very vociferous in their stance and perhaps less likely to be goody-two-shoes while also out shouting about freedoms.

I'm sorry, what?
When you gave those figures you added "I fully understand the argument that the numbers are skewed by the percentages of the population that are vaccinated/unvaccinated" so how can you claim to show anything with skewed data?

From BBC "Only about 12.8% of Quebec residents are not vaccinated, but they make up nearly a third of all hospital cases."

Your argument that "the numbers causing issues with the healthcare system are vaccinated" reminds me of that old joke about one third of traffic accidents are caused by drunk drivers so since two thirds involved sober drivers it is safer that people drive while drunk. :lol:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am willing to bet that some people who have discounts on their insurance policies engage in risky behaviours (speeding, unprotected sex with strangers, etc). And yet insurance companies still charge them less, e.g. for age, having winter tires or not having pre-existing conditions. Legally, as far as I can tell. These are just different factors contributing to the overall risk and some of them get the credit while others don't. And lots of people who generate very little garbage, not using schools or causing fires are still paying more tax based on having a more expensive house or a holiday home. Authorities seem to have quite a bit of discretion in this respect.

Certainly a private healthcare system would have imposed extra charges given the staggering level of additional risk (they do in countries which have such systems) so its not at all obvious why a rationed taxpayer funded system shouldn't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wished to avoid the discussion that I anticipated would go along the lines of, "X are vaccinated, Y are unvaccinated so the proportion of those that are not causing issues with the healthcare is higher for those that are vaccinated than those unvaccinated."

Using actual numbers in hospital though, those that are vaccinated are taking up more beds than those without the vaccine, in Alberta. I keep a close watch on those figures. I have no idea what the proportion is in Quebec. Using your figures above, 2/3 of the hospital cases in Quebec are those that are vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the Quebec government does this, let's hope their lawyers come up with better arguments than that when attempting to defend such a law.

I expect those lawyers arguing against the legislation will use the mountains of evidence that those unvaccinated, but that have survived C-19, have protection against C-19. I don't intend to debate that data but there is certainly enough there to show that comparing 2 people (vaccinated and unvaccinated) 9 months after receiving their second shot/recovering from C-19 would likely result in them both having similar protection, or the unvaccinated having better protection (I know that a vaccinated person that has had C-19 has better protection than them both).

That being the case, punishing the unvaccinated purely for being unvaccinated would likely fail. I would expect them to trot out example after example of such incidences.

Unfortunately for all, the vaccines have not resulted in being the magic bullet it was hoped they would be and I believe that politicians would be more useful if they worked to ensure that everyone on the planet that wished to was able to get double vaxxed so that, hopefully, the likelihood of further variants can be greatly reduced.

If they wish to mandate vaccination, they should do so.

If the examples other jurisdictions have experienced, are experienced here, I anticipate that, within the next 2-3 weeks, numbers will dramatically reduce, almost dramatically as they increased.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What arguments X, Y and Z may or may not use isn’t relevant.

What is relevant is that we have a public health emergency, that our rationed healthcare system isn’t coping and that the cost to the overall economy is astronomical. Vaccines did prove to be amazingly effective at reducing the risk and therefore the burden. Its only reasonable that people who decide to take extra risks and impose the additional burden on others get to pay more themselves.

As for making vaccination mandatory- I am all for it but the government does not seem to have the balls.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes but when you actually point out the figures are skewed for that very reason how can you expect it to go ignored?
You know full well that if the vaccinated/unvaccinated numbers were even then the far greater number of covid patients in hospital would be unvaccinated. So we're back to it being safer to drive drunk than sober because "using actual numbers" more accidents are caused by the sober drivers. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are the figures for at least two vaccines? Any separate figure for ICU admissions?

Re: Coronavirus
 

[QUOTE=bats;13087721]you make some valid points but I'm still opposed to the idea. And not can I think of an alternative.



I see where you are coming from coming from aswell... and I don't think the tax method is the right way, plus as AC says not sure if it would even stand up in court as a law... maybe its just been put out there as an "encouragement" and they have no intention of imposing such a tax... it was on the news last night that after LeGault mentioned that 7000 Quebecers signed up for their first dose!. All I know is that something needs to be done,

I get the smoking drinking obeisty health thing and how that can be a burden on the health care system.... but the big difference is, it doesn't overwhelm the health system to the point of no beds being available.... and other life threatening surgeries are cancelled as a result of that, I find that grossly unfair just because someone didn't get vaccinated. I know some people are being cautious and a not necessarily antivax, I am cautious.. .I question myself if it was the right thing to do, I have never even had a flu jab but the way I see it, is that its a risk either way.... risk taking the vax, or don't take it and risk getting sick with covid, its unpredictable....particulary if you are not vaccinated.

These are not normal times, so we cant apply normal rules to getting vaxxed or not... if I were the government, I would stick with pro choice... get vaxxed, don't get vaxxed, but if you get sick, we are not delaying surgery on this person that needs it now or will die, to treat you who chose not be vaxxed. Your choice...be cautious, but don't take it for granted your going to be treated. I know that's harsh, but just put yourself in the shoes or the family's shoes of a person that has died because their surgery was cancelled. That really does bother me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here we go again. The figures in Alberta show that more vaccinated than unvaccinated have tested positive and are in hospital. The reference I made to skewing was to show that I acknowledge that those, like you, that wish to avoid this fact, will likely make reference to the % of vaccinated versus the % of unvaccinated. I don't dispute that. You can do whatever you want to with the facts to support whatever argument you wish to make, but the facts are the facts. On pure numbers, the vaccinated are placing more of a burden upon the health system than the unvaccinated.

So what? If my auntie had bollocks she would be my uncle. The numbers clearly show that, in jurisdictions referred to above, there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated in hospital and, if my understanding is correct, it is those in hospital that are causing the burden upon healthcare.

Re: Coronavirus
 

“Would it even stand up in a court of law” is a red herring.

I don’t specialize in the relevant field of law in Quebec. Its a very specialized field. Doubt anyone else here does. Not sure me doubting that Einstein’s theory of relativity in a random chatroom would be taken seriously. How does it make sense to discuss intricacies of very specific pieces of legislation when (lets be honest here) none of us even read the unique codes and laws of Quebec? Who can enlighten me on the intricacies of Charte des droits et libertés de la personne? Wouldn’t it be stupid saying “Bezukhov was wrong” if you haven’t read War and Peace? How is this different?

All we can do is express our amateur opinions on whether the proposal to tax the unvaxxed is fair and reasonable. I think the case for that is overwhelming just by the fact that the healthcare system isn’t coping and the risk of burdening it further is more than 10 times higher if you are unvaccinated.

“I have never had a flu jab” is missing the context. This isn’t about you. This is about public health. Its an emergency. Flu isn’t.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Have you actually looked the figures, nationwide, for surgeries cancelled during normal times versus surgeries cancelled during C-19? I accept that there are more and I accept that, if it was your surgery that was cancelled, you would be pissed. But surgeries being cancelled is a fact of the healthcare system. Are you able to show that, in any jurisdiction in Canada, over the last 2 years, no beds were available as a result of C-19, rather than some Provinces transferring patients to another to ease the burden (I accept that this is not good too)? It is my belief, and I appreciate that I may be wrong, that this has not happened in Canada.

That is not the way triage works. Should we refuse to treat the drunk driver that should be first in the line for surgery to treat "an all around good person" whose surgery is not anywhere near as immediate? Should we refuse to treat an unvaccinated person in need of ventilation to treat a habitual drug addict that has repeated attended for resuscitation when they need resuscitating again? Do you really believe that a 26 year old, C-19 survivor is really more of a burden upon the healthcare system than a 85 year old, triple vaxxed person with loads of co-morbidities, when they both contract C-19?

Re: Coronavirus
 

More sober people have car accidents but claiming that drunk driving is wonderful for the safety of our roads and its unreasonable to have measures against drinking and driving would be a logical fallacy.

The issue here is risk. The fact fully vaccinated take less than half ICU spaces in Ontario is remarkable and shows how massively the risk is reduced by being vaxxed. I don’t have data on Quebec but its the same for every place which has data.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I believe so but, IIRC, the ICU figures cover a period of the last 120 days.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There seems to be a problem with the quotes. Please check your post after posting, if the quotes are ‘cocked up’, please either correct it or delete the quote. Thank you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even a handful of surgeries being cancelled and people die as a result are too many when there is something we can do about this.

The example you have given me are the same argument as before...the drug addict, the drunk driver, the smoking lung cancer victim, these are isolated cases that don't clog up the medical system as opposed to unvaccinated people in hospitals now, and no I haven't studied the figures, I just listen to the news who report that 50% of hospital cases in Ontario are unvaccinated people?? ....(yes that could be wrong, I have my views on modern media reporting and how they make things sound a lot worse, but that's a separate argument). I think I am probably biased as a friend's relative had their surgery delayed and now its inoperable, if that was one of my family I would be a bit more than pissed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And nobody is talking about NOT treating Covid patients whether vaxxed or not.

The proposal is for extra tax. Of course drunk drivers do get fined, whether they cause an accident or not. And people buying cigarettes pay a lot of extra tax over and above any other product (except alcohol). Taxing bad behaviour is nothing new.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don't get me started on federal prisons. $115k a year to keep a male in a federal Canadian prison. Even more for a woman.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And on pure numbers sober drivers cause more car accidents than drunk drivers. Would you go round telling people that sober drivers place more of a burden on the emergency services than drunk ones?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who is liable if a cancer patient is unable to get a bed as a (politically) unvaccinated is using it ? Where will the greater number of unnecessary deaths occur ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great analogy :thumbup: