No EI for the unvaccinated

[fluffy]

It's not the unvaccinated that are killing you, it's Covid. Would you blame a vaccinated person for killing you if you become ill from them and they weren't even showing symptoms so didn't isolate? The answer is no, so its the same for the unvaccinated.

But it's not a blame game, no one is "at fault". It's a game of reduce the risk as best you can, and when you have a person or persons unnecessarily raisng that risk then you have to deal with it.

The ethics matter, it's just fear from vaccine pushers that think they require everyone else to provide their safety for them.

The other side of that coin is the AVs who are claiming the right to put the majority at risk to satisfy their own selfish agenda.

[rustled]

It's not the unvaccinated that are killing you, it's Covid. Would you blame a vaccinated person for killing you if you become ill from them and they weren't even showing symptoms so didn't isolate? The answer is no, so its the same for the unvaccinated.

But it's not a blame game, no one is "at fault". It's a game of reduce the risk as best you can, and when you have a person or persons unnecessarily raisng that risk then you have to deal with it.

For all this talk about risk, though, you've yet to show the evidence to support your assumption that an unvaccinated employee is significantly more likely to put their fellow workers at risk by coming to work while infectious, when compared to a vaccinated employee - who, as we know, should be much less likely to be aware they have covid while they are infectious with covid.

No one seems to be able to show the risk to the workplace is significantly greater, which would be the only reasonable and logical way to justify termination and subsequent denial of EI.

The appropriate step would be banishing covid from the workplace with testing. Instead: scapegoat the unvaccinated.

The ethics matter, it's just fear from vaccine pushers that think they require everyone else to provide their safety for them.

The other side of that coin is the AVs who are claiming the right to put the majority at risk to satisfy their own selfish agenda.

So again, being ok with the termination of employment and denial of EI is coming across as "let's support justice and fair play for people who do conform to the majority and what I believe, but not for those who do not conform". Ethics of convenience. Morality of convenience.

[Sparki55]

But it's not a blame game, no one is "at fault". It's a game of reduce the risk as best you can, and when you have a person or persons unnecessarily raisng that risk then you have to deal with it.

People are blaming the unvaccinated for many things. It is a blame game. Your opinion doesn't change that.

The other side of that coin is the AVs who are claiming the right to put the majority at risk to satisfy their own selfish agenda.

People who don't want to vaccinate aren't making the choice to harm others. It's their own choice. They can be excluded from non-essential private businesses without any issues however when affecting their employment or government provided safety nets during lack of employment there exists an ethical problem.

This same argument will be made for climate change next, in fact, it's already happening. Soon choosing to eat beef will be known as adding risk to others and deemed unacceptable by the similar type crowds as vaccine pushers. I'm not making s slippery slope argument either, this is what is and will continue to happen.

[Sparki55]

For all this talk about risk, though, you've yet to show the evidence to support your assumption that an unvaccinated employee is significantly more likely to put their fellow workers at risk by coming to work while infectious, when compared to a vaccinated employee - who, as we know, should be much less likely to be aware they have covid while they are infectious with covid.

Playing into a discussion on risk is exactly the way these mandates get put into place. There is no ethical argument about risk to others when discussing personal health choices.

It's not moral to require people to put risk on themselves (whether that risk is large or not, only matters the personal reasons of risk to the individual) to protect others.

These are unprecedented mandates.

[rustled]

For all this talk about risk, though, you've yet to show the evidence to support your assumption that an unvaccinated employee is significantly more likely to put their fellow workers at risk by coming to work while infectious, when compared to a vaccinated employee - who, as we know, should be much less likely to be aware they have covid while they are infectious with covid.

Playing into a discussion on risk is exactly the way these mandates get put into place. There is no ethical argument about risk to others when discussing personal health choices.

It's not moral to require people to put risk on themselves (whether that risk is large or not, only matters the personal reasons of risk to the individual) to protect others.

These are unprecedented mandates.

I don't disagree.

[fluffy]

It's my understanding that research into tranmission rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people are inconclusive at this point. We know for a fact that vaccination gives a large degree of protection from serious manifestations of the virus, but yes, the research into transmission rates is still ongoing. There are indications that asymptomatic infections occur at a much lower rate among vaccinated people, but some question still remains as to how long this effect lasts after receiving the vaccination. There are also indications that some vaccines are performing better than others in this arena.

At present, vaccination is our single best weapon to halt the spread of the virus. Since we don't currently know conclusively one way or the other about the vaccine's effect on transmission rates, isn't it just good judgment to err on the side of caution ?

There is another ethical question to consider, is society as a whole responsible for protecting those unable (or unwilling) to protect themselves ?

[fluffy]

It's not moral to require people to put risk on themselves (whether that risk is large or not, only matters the personal reasons of risk to the individual) to protect others.

But if the choice is one between a greater risk and a lesser risk doesn't it make sense to go with the choice that offers the least risk for the greatest number of people ? You seem to be saying that you're okay with putting individual liberty before the greater good, an argument I simply cannot get on board with.

[Sparki55]

You seem to be saying that you're okay with putting individual liberty before the greater good, an argument I simply cannot get on board with.

Yes, I do when it involves personal heath, wellness and freedom of ones self (not saying people should be allowed to do anything they want). There is no clear definition of the greater good. Anything can be made into a greater good argument.

A climate activist who is a vegetarian can argue that eating beef affects the climate and it's wrong to eat beef so we are going to ban it to save the world and protect animals. This is already on its way to happening.

For me, the greater good is to have happiness within reason while on earth. I'll let you speculate what that is since it could almost define anything.

[fluffy]

You seem to be saying that you're okay with putting individual liberty before the greater good, an argument I simply cannot get on board with.

Yes, I do when it involves personal heath, wellness and freedom of ones self (not saying people should be allowed to do anything they want). There is no clear definition of the greater good. Anything can be made into a greater good argument.

But when that personal freedom comes at the expense of others doesn't that put you on the wrong side of the ethical argument ?

[Sparki55]

But when that personal freedom comes at the expense of others doesn't that put you on the wrong side of the ethical argument ?

You're asking someone to inject something into their body to protect your personal freedom of some reduced risk life. It's simple which choice is actually ethical.

People who don't vaccinate are accepting that life is random and they might become infected and then will isolate at that time without asking you to do anything to your body. It's also acceptable to ask them to wear the appropriate PPE. Maybe it's time we looked at respirators for those who are scared of the unvaccinated.

Vaccine pushers still have the ultimate choice to stay away from people at all costs yet because of some greater good argument here we are trying to coerce people against their beliefs.

[fluffy]

You're asking someone to inject something into their body to protect your personal freedom of some reduced risk life. It's simple which choice is actually ethical.

People who don't vaccinate are accepting that life is random and they might become infected and then will isolate at that time without asking you to do anything to your body. It's also acceptable to ask them to wear the appropriate PPE. Maybe it's time we looked at respirators for those who are scared of the unvaccinated.

Vaccine pushers still have the ultimate choice to stay away from people at all costs yet because of some greater good argument here we are trying to coerce people against their beliefs.

I get what you're saying, but the elephant in the room is the extreme remoteness of a serious reaction to the vaccine, or the as yet unproven possibility of a long term side effect, compared to the obvious benefit of slowing the spread of the virus.

You're arguing for your right to roll the dice on infection, but the consumption of medical resources is on the table too, which takes the effects of your decision beyond just you.

[Sparki55]

You're arguing for your right to roll the dice on infection, but the consumption of medical resources is on the table too.

Yes I am (I'm vaccinated myself btw). I did it prior to coercion efforts but later than first available dose.

Prior to Covid our healthcare system was at 100%. I learned that from the pandemic that we kept hospitals at full capacity almost no standby human resources available. Poor planning on the governments side does not mean an immediate emergency on everyone else to makeup for the lack of resources.

[GordonH]

Governor in Council needs to have the Justices of Supreme Court of Canada make a ruling on the Vaccination Mandate, to actually see if it is Constitutional or not.

If not then stop it in it’s tracks NOW, both Federally & Provincially.

[fluffy]

Prior to Covid our healthcare system was at 100%. I learned that from the pandemic that we kept hospitals at full capacity almost no standby human resources available. Poor planning on the governments side does not mean an immediate emergency on everyone else to makeup for the lack of resources.

This is hardly the fault of government though. A sudden and rapidly evolving health crisis has stretched resources to the limit, I see trying to dump blame for that on the government as a complete cop-out. Is there not some societal responsibility upon all of us the do what we can to prevent unnecessary increases to the load our healthcare system is currently experiencing ?

[LANDM]

Governor in Council needs to have the Justices of Supreme Court of Canada make a ruling on the Vaccination Mandate, to actually see if it is Constitutional or not.

If not then stop it in it’s tracks NOW, both Federally & Provincially.

That is not the governor general's duty.