Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13087737)
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
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13087737)
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
[QUOTE=bats;13087721]you make some valid points but I'm still opposed to the idea. And not can I think of an alternative.
Originally Posted by Mordko
(Post 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? 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
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13087746)
Yes but when you actually point out the figures are skewed for that very reason how can you expect it to go ignored?
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13087746)
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
“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
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 13087819)
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.
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 13087819)
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
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. 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
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 13087749)
Are the figures for at least two vaccines? Any separate figure for ICU admissions?
|
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
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13087842)
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? 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
The example you have given me are the same argument as before...the drug addict, the drunk driver, the smoking lung cancer victim 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
Originally Posted by Mordko
(Post 13087909)
Taxing bad behaviour is nothing new.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13087839)
On pure numbers, the vaccinated are placing more of a burden upon the health system than the unvaccinated.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Gozit
(Post 13087711)
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
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13087957)
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?
|
All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:39 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.