Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry, I don’t particularly care what an incompetent former nurse who likes to spread disinformation quotes. Is he misquoting? Is he selectively picking out misleading bits? If you wanted to make a point using CDC’s “own research” you could have done just that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I see you that elect to play the man, rather than the ball.

Is this chap qualified enough for you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm reading your view as allow those choose to be unvaxxed to gamble their life/health, because the surviors will have natural immunity similar to those with vaccine immunity. And on this strain, most will indeed survive.

Nuances: hospital staff will bear the unecessary burden (including illness/death) of the unvaxxed; poorly informed individuals will regard vaccine refusal as a reasonable choice; should a more severe strain of virus emerge the inertia of the unvaxxed will be more difficult to difficult to break.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying, and I have been for some time as the data has been available for the world to see, is that jurisdictions cannot lump all of the vaxxed into one group, all of the unvaxxed into another group and state that one is in a better position than the other. Clearly, those that have survived infection (whether vaxxed or unvaxxed) are in a far better place to deal with future infection than those that have been vaxxed and not been infected. So, for example, Australia's recent conduct with Djokovic isn't based on science at all (I accept that they have jurisdiction to impose any conditions they wish to upon those visiting their country) just as insisting that all passengers on aeroplanes being vaxxed doesn't reflect the data that those unvaxxed but infected, are different risks to the population.

I'd respectfully suggest that those that have not received the vaccine at this time are unlikely to do so in the future, irrespective of what jurisdictions impose. Likewise, I anticipate that those that are unvaxxed and have been infected, will be able to argue against any level of mandates that require vaccination relatively easily. Courts tend to be swayed by evidence, not morals, and the evidence is now against such mandates. As many experts in the field have been stating for some time.

Should a more severe strain emerge, I am confident that the vaccinated will be in a very similar position to those unvaxxed and infected. In fact, one could argue that the latter are in a better position than the former due to the benefits that natural immunity confers over vaccinated immunity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The data is clear that those that are unvaxxed have a higher severe illness rate and death rate than the vaxxed. You accept that, right?

It's not useful the bring the Djokovic controversey into it, far too much politics involved.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I accept that the unvaccinated and not infected have a higher severe illness rate and death rate than the vaccinated and not infected.

As you will note from the data, the unvaccinated and infected, the vaccinated/not infected, and the vaccinated and infected, have very similar severe illness rate, death rates with the latter having slightly more favourable outcomes than the previous two groups. You accept that too, right?

I accept that the vaccine has been a good thing. However, it has not been the magic bullet it was hoped it would be and, if one survives an infection, the natural immunity provides as good, and a longer lasting, benefit than vaccines alone, just as many epidemiologists stated would likely be the case.

Perzactly!

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, I just don’t tend to waste time on listening to discredited sources. Is your second link to this guy who was forced to resign due to unprofessional conduct? https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDet.../0048643-62621

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re-stating;

Amongst the never infected the the unvaxxed suffer higher illness/death than the vaxed.

Amongst the unvaxxed recovered, their new natural immunity appears to be at least equal to those who have been vaccinated. (Yes, that's in line with what I have heard in recent days).

The magic bullet comment does not follow from the above. First of all, vaccines are never "magic bullets" they are a means to reduce spread in a population. Second, had there been no vaccine, the numbers of illness/death would be far higher than they are (first statement). What we can say (consistent with my earlier post) is that those that gamble their health and burden the hospitals through their rejection of a vaccine, should benefit from decent immunity if they survive. I accept that natural immunity for unvaxxed survivors is better than low immunity for unvaxxed survivors, but in consideration of the non-survivors and the impact on healthcare, I don't see it as something to be celebrated or promoted.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That reminds me of someone i used to work with. Occupational Health would fairly frequently summon her for a polio vacinne and would need some persuading that she didn't need one as she had had polio as a child.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I note that you have not pointed to anything they have stated with which you disagree in those videos. I suggest you review the source material yourself and let us know if you disagree with what those two have stated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you able to provide any logical reason why jurisdictions should treat those with vaccinations and those unvaxxed, but infected, differently?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have to admit that I am not following the point you appear to want to make here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Presumably, you mean those that are have immunity through vaccination and those unvaxxed that have natural immunity following an infection. The reason is to discourage the behavior. We're agreed that we want as many people vaxxed as possible, so the question is how to deal with the unvaxxed population. Three segments, those that can't be vaxed for medical reasons, the political objectors, and the ill informed. Obviously the first category is not an issue as vaccination is not relevant. The second category is problematic, and there's a debate to be had regarding personal rights and societal health; to the extent that virus virulence/transmissability factor is low, this category can be put on the back burner. It's really the third category which needs to be addressed. These are individuals or communities who are not objecting for a political reason, but from misinformation, superstition, habit or convenience; people who do not know better. When juridstictions differentiate (vaccine passports etc) the effect will be to nudge this third group toward vaccination. Which is in their best interests and societies best interests. As for the political objectors, there's probably some way to accomodate them. Perhaps if they wear their MAGA hats the vaccine passport can be waived (again subject the virus being only moderate risk).

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, sorry. If you were to provide a reputable source then I'd read it. Like a peer reviewed paper from a good journal or a Canadian/US organization which includes specialists. Nonsense can be generated at a much faster rate than I can read/listen to it. It's not my field so why would I listen to some plonker ranting for clicks? In my field I am sometimes forced to do it but then I get paid.

I mean a nurse who has been caught spreading incompetent BS and a former doctor who has been kicked out for unprofessional behaviour... It usually takes A LOT to get kicked out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There wasn't a point, just a pointless anecdote. The situation you talked of, someone unvaccinated but immune because they had previously had COVID, reminded me of a similar occasion so it's not an unknown scenario. COVID and all it's iterations is rapidly evolving and so advice must develop with it. Hopefully once there's sufficient evidence of post infection immunity there'll be protocols to match.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But that's the thing we don't have "crowded area by the door" because we still have social distance measures that as far as i know here in BC have never been lifted. People are still spaced out waiting and in a coffee line we are staring at the back of each other a few feet apart not face to face so there seems little reason to be overly concerned when it's a free for all once seated (within the local regulations)
The idea of a busy area with unmasked people in very close quarters is clearly something many find worrisome and i could see that this mask debate may well go on and on yet while we are stuck in this loop England have been happy to break away from it altogether it seems and remember throughout the whole Omicron thing Boris never reintroduced social distancing or masks for pubs and restaurants and vax passport requirements were uncommon in comparison to Canada, yet again we have been hearing that for the last few days cases are dropping off quite a bit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think this is spot on and Quebec's policy of requiring a vaccine certificate in order to purchase alcohol or cannabis seems to have been exactly the nudge required.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lots of people have spoken of social distancing rules not necessarily being followed. Even in BC.
We're currently in a circuit breaker for two weeks (take-outs and delivery only) but distancing or not, if it's -20 out, with a feels like -30 and the choice is distanced but outside or crowded but inside, I'm certain a blind eye will be turned to people only a couple of feet apart but masked and staff will seat people a bit quicker.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes except in our local blood work clinics where there are literally 10 spaced out chairs inside and a big line outside in the cold before opening as all the fasting people want to get their bloods done and get home to eat something. I am sure finding a vein on these people when they finally get inside is tough at times. :lol:

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK. But none of that dealt with the question I asked.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Both of them were quoting directly from the CDC's own research but, as you don't actually have anything specific to say about what they actually said, I simply accept that you have nothing to say.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It totally and comprehensively dealt with the question you asked !

Re: Coronavirus
 

So you wish to turn back the clock to a time when they weren't vaccinated?

I was referring to now. Just as when people are able to show medical exemptions (resulting in them being able to do things off limits for the non-vaxxed) do you accept that similar provisions should be made for unvaxxed, but infected, provided they are able to show that this has occurred?

If not, why not? How are they any more of a danger to society than the medically exempt?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Un bon idée for le Québec ! If they were so inclined, American states might be able to achieve a similar uptick by making certificates required at gun stores !

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did you read my post? I've already stated that those with an exemption on medical grounds do not need to be vaccinated ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I read it but it appears that the point I am trying to make is either flying way above your head, or you are not willing to answer. Either way, I suggest we leave it there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm always willing to answer. Whatever point you're trying to make is very difficult to discern. My impression is that your thinking on this is rather muddled, and I am attempting to understand it and see where the confusion lies.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No pun intended, but this is pretty heartless.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60132765

Re: Coronavirus
 

Makes perfect sense to me. Nice pun too. :lol:

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK. Here goes

I'll repeat : Are you able to provide any logical reason why jurisdictions should treat those with vaccinations and those unvaxxed, but infected, differently?

I have highlighted the important bit. I understand your argument regarding vaxxed v unvaxxed. I am asking to confirm why the vaxxed, and the unvaxxed but infected, should be treated differently.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you further define who constitutes "the unvaxxed but infected" ? Someone who is currently/newly infected or someone who has been infected in the past, has recovered and now has antibodies. (I suspect the latter, but just want to make sure we are on the same page.)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Infected and recovered.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So the question is why treat this unvaxxed group differently from the vaccinated group ?

First, because this group is a subset the the unvaxxed population as whole. A lucky subset (recovered, and with some level of immunnity). By treating their immunity as equiavelent to vaccine immunity it sends a signal to the entire unvaxxed population (infected and not infected) that there is an alternative means to deal with the virus. We know on a population level that this simply is not the case. Some of the not infected will take false comfort in their ability to survive the virus and not be so lucky.

Second, because in practice it is harder to maintain and confirm natural immunity than vaccinated immunity. The antibodies that are produced under both scenaros weaken over time. Someone on the vaccination track gets a booster, what does an unvaxxed person do, re-infect themselves with a dangerous virus ? Is the testing to prove the unvaxxed immunity reliable?

In short, the vaccinated population have higher and more reliable immunity than the unvaccinated population. A pandemic is a population level health concern, it is transmissable, and in the case of a virus, adaptable. Solutions need to be applied at the population level (hence considering the entire unvaxxed group rather than the unvaxxed infected recovered subset).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then why not provide the primary source?

However, if this is a competition in linking charlatans and people whose brains have been destroyed by drug abuse, here is another contribution: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...box=1643206847

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh dear.

At least Neil Young is on the right page :thumbup:

Re: Coronavirus
 

The scientific data supports such an assertion. Why do you find it so difficult to admit that?

This could easily be dealt with by the unvaxxed/infected/recovered having to provide whatever documentation the jurisdictions require, just as the vaccinated have to.

I find this bizarre. The unvaxxed/infected/recovered are, essentially, the same as the vaxxed. If it is possible to treat the vaxxed and unvaxxed differently, why should there be any reason not to treat the unvaxxed and unvaxxed/infected/recovered differently?

In any event, this is becoming a moot point as I note that restrictions in England are being lifted and I do not foresee that it will be too long before other jurisdictions follow suit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I do not find it difficult to admit the assertion, I have referred to it in my response. The key word to focus on the part your highlighed is "treating". It refers to the approach of the authorities not the underlying equivalency. By not understanding this word, you miss the point.

Indeed, proof of "Covid recovered" (a PCR test evidencing antibodies) could be presented in lieu of vaccination. I did not say it couldn't. You asked for logical reasons regarding different treatment, and I suggested that such a tests based approach would be "harder". At what schedule would tests be taken? If someone was asymptomatic and therefore did not take a test (despite being infected) this would be impact the integrity of the system. Do you not agree that a test based system is inferior to a vaccination system. Proof of vaccination is straightforward; proof of immunity through testing is not.

Nothing bizarre here. I've explained at length why the unvaxxed pose a threat, and why it's preferable to differentiate. I think you are focussed on one very narrow aspect of the recovered unvaxxed, and disregard the wider implications of accepting that aspect as equivalent to population vaccination.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some wise person said this back on January 1st (and many times previously)
Lifting England Covid rules while 3bn people unvaccinated reckless – experts
Better late than never I suppose.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think we have touched on this approach about vaccines before whereby UK is full steam ahead on boosters when many countries cannot even get a decent percentage with a first dose. I guess the big issue is timing because how do we ensure those countries get the right number of vaccines and they get administered in a decent timeframe. If it's not done speedily how much longer do other countries wait before they relax restrictions and reboot their economies? Would the UK have been in another Xmas lock down were it not for their booster campaign because i would guess the majority of Brits would have been pretty fed up with that idea. I don't get the feeling that the average man/woman on the street cares much about the under vaccinated poorer countries but rather whether their local will be open for a pint or two and stuffing their faces with turkey. Here we are in Canada vaccinating 5 years upwards, the UK by contrast is not vaccinating under 12's and England is not recommending face masks in schools although some schools have hit back at this so what data are we following here? We have heard these so called "expert" groups before coming up with ludicrous possible death numbers if things aren't locked down and yet most most of them have been vastly over exaggerated. Currently their case numbers are continuing to fall so watch this space as they say. Of course so are ours almost everywhere except in your neck of the woods which seems odd as you had previously mentioned

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did you miss a couple of words at the end?

Aren't case numbers falling because A) fewer people are being tested and B) those that are tested are relied upon to report the positive tests and are not doing so?

The UK daily Death total remains high. We're just coming to the end of a two week circuit breaker. The only numbers that can be compared with any accuracy (because of the testing/reporting issue) are the hospital and death numbers.

What was it, 2 or 3 weeks ago I posted that NB had seen 18 deaths in 6 days and that had doubled the number we saw throughout 2020? An average of 3 per day.
Since then, daily new deaths continue to be between 3 and 6. That's not going down.

I know we're the province with most older people (%) and possibly most unhealthy too. It seems reasonable to assume that's why the death rate (pop) here is so high - still third in Canada I'm hearing. But if this was not happening in 2020 and a large chunk of 2021 but now it is I can't see any other conclusion than Omicron spreads so fast that it infects so many people that even a low % of people so adversely affected is a high number of people.