Yesterday, according to
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/, 1565 Americans died of COVID. With ~1/8 the population, 29 Canadians died. That leads me to suspect that
maybe we're doing something right.
We
might be. But how do you account for these differences? Could the differences be due to a higher prevalence of certain co-morbities among one population? Could a higher number of illegal immigrants account for the rapid spread of the disease in certain areas? Is vaccine reluctance among inner-city black and hispanic populations a factor?
Until someone crunches the data at the end of this pandemic, we've no way to determine whether lockdowns were more effective in the long term, or whether a focused effort would have worked better.
The thing about something called a novel coronavirus is that the "novel" means new. So we're learning as we go along what works and what doesn't. And newer evidence indicates that mixed vaccines work fine, and I offer our death rate compared to the US to back up that claim.
What newer evidence? A news report citing "emerging evidence," or a peer-reviewed, double-blind clinical study? Bear in mind that the vaccines are effectively "experimental." They've not undergone the usual, riguourous trials, trials that can take years to conduct and draw helpful conclusions from. Mixing vaccines, like mixing beer and whiskey,
may be perfectly fine for some people, but not for others. The fact that the manufacturers of these vaccines are not libel for any side effects ought to give you pause for thought.
observe that the people I know who died of COVID had not been vaxxed at the time.
That's tragic. Policy makers, however, need to strike a careful balance between protecting the public from one harm without putting the public in danger of another harm. As the current stats show, 64 percent of all deaths attributed to Covid in Canada were of people aged 80 and over. Only 6 percent of fatalites were under the age of 60.
It seems clear to me that we should be focussing our efforts on protecting people over 60, ensuring that they are provided with an opportunity to be vaccinated. If they cannot, or do not wish to be vaccinated, they need to be isolated from the general population until such time as most people have immunity to the disease. It is unrealistic to expect 100 percent of the population to become vaccinated. Nor is it necessarily required. The corona virus is not measles. There is no silver-bullet vaccine that will provide life-time immunity. Some people will continue to die from the disease, just as thousands die each year of the flu virus.
And I've been nagging my MPP and MP for months about vaccine passports.
Vaccine passports are a bad idea. Apart from any efficacy they
may have, they are divisive, and will create an underclass. Brave New World!
One day some of those toppling statues, burning buildings, and championing this or that cause today may come to realize that, like many before them, they inflicted horrible suffering on others in the name of some just cause. More probably, they will be despised and condemned by a future mob. Sometimes we need to pause and reflect on the unintended consequences of our actions, noble as they may appear at the time.
My daughters needed documented vaccination for school,
My brother-in-law is in a similar bind. His daughter goes to a private school in Ottawa, but the family lives in Quebec. He's been resisting the pressure to have her vaccinated. Given her age, there is a higher risk from the vaccine than from Covid. (Admittedly the risks are small in both cases.) But in his view, why put his daughter at risk, especially during puberty?
You don't have to get your shots, but I'm fine with people not getting the all benefits of society if they won't shoulder the responsibilities.
Do you really want to go there? So the unvaccinated can't dine out because they haven't shouldered their responsibilities to society?
How about all the chronic addicts and alcoholics who clog our emergency wards on a daily basis? They don't appear to be holding up their end of the societal pact. Not only do they have access to free, tax-payer funded injection sites, but they also have access to medical facilities that many of them will never contribute to in the way of taxes. Perhaps only bonafide taxpayers should have access to hospitals and clinics. The addicts can avail themselves of pop-up street clinics, steps away from the vendors feeding street food to the Great Unvaxxed.
While I'm at it, I may as well address that other elephant out there. My wife is tired of hearing "my body, my choice" when it comes to career women having a second or third abortion at government expense. Why does that argument work for these women, but not for those who don't want to be vaccinated, especially those who've already
had Covid? And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't consider getting vaccinated. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of compulsion, and the despicable shaming of those who are "pro-choice" when it comes to vaccines.
www.reuters.com
