Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Ch's avatar

How about doing the obvious? Get rid of the mandates. The feds can get rid of all of theirs with the stroke of a pen, and can tell the provinces that their emergency Covid funding will be cut off unless they get rid of theirs within two weeks. After all, the government gave them money contingent on passports - it can perfectly well stop it.

We all know that none of the mandates are doing any good at all anyway, so why not get rid of them?

Everyone in that convoy, and supporting them, knows that the entire motivation for the mandates now is to make people like them suffer. That's why they are angry. That's why they should be angry.

In a sensible world, the judges would already have ruled the the desire to make people suffer is not a demonstrably sound reason for overriding their Charter rights. Too bad we aren't in that world.

Get rid of the federal mandates, cut off money for provinces that don't get rid of theirs, and everyone goes home happy. Keep persecuting these people just because you don't like them, and the results won't be pretty.

Expand full comment
Ad Nausica's avatar

Matt. When you started this Line thing, you said it would be no bullshit. Are you sure -- really sure -- that you know what you are talking about here.

The WHO has come out against mandates as an 'absolute last resort'. Are they fringe? Or misinformed?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vaccine-mandates-absolute-last-resort-who-europe-head-says-2021-12-07/

They have a 6-point policy paper on what is required for mandatory vaccination. Are we following them? Notably, "If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions, a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio (1)."

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1

They reference the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Are they fringe, or uninformed? They have an excellent report, "Public health: ethical issues" dating back to 2007. It's a great read. If it is too long, try Chapter 3.

https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/public-health

Of importance is 3.37, the intervention ladder. Are we following it, or did we skip over it?

Or how about Section 3.7: "...media stories often turn out to be based on anecdotes, unpublished reports or preliminary results, or they overstate, misrepresent or misunderstand the claims of the researcher."

Or Section 3.8: "Perhaps only some of the literature will be cited, or explanations rely on a particular strand of scientific evidence, ignoring or excluding other evidence. All groups, politicians, the media, single interest groups and scientists are capable of this."

Or Section 3.9: "A related issue is the status of views that are not considered to be ‘mainstream’ or typical of the scientific community. Such heterodox views sometimes turn out to be correct, so it is important that they are not ignored."

Or 3.46: "Political interests can also have significant impact on public health matters when politicians are motivated by the need to be seen to be ‘doing something’. They may have to choose between an intervention that would be popular straight away but ineffective, and another having less immediate appeal but more likely to be successful in public health terms."

Or 3.11: "Although scientific experts may sometimes be tempted, or pressured, in these circumstances into offering precise answers to policy makers, the honest answer will often be “we don’t know” or “we can only estimate the risk to within certain, sometimes wide, limits”. It follows that claims of absolute safety or certainty should be treated with great caution."

Or take their public statements: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/news/a-bioethics-view-on-the-latest-covid-vaccination-policies

“The idea of vaccine passports raises ethical questions concerning respect for individual rights and interests, public health responsibilities and social justice. We are concerned that bringing in passports in relatively uncontroversial areas (e.g. for entry to large events and clubs) could pave the way to passports being required in other areas of life. This, we believe, could lead to discrimination against and a loss of opportunity those who cannot provide proof of vaccine status. It could also exacerbate distrust by marginalised people and increase vaccine hesitancy, particularly if this is seen as introducing mandatory vaccination by the back door or building surveillance apparatus for communities that are already disproportionately monitored.”

Or this on healthcare workers: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/news/mandatory-vaccinations-for-health-and-social-care-workers-nuffield-council-on-bioethics-urges-government-to-gather-more-evidence-and-explore-other-options-more-thoroughly-before-introducing-coercive-measures

"the Government has not provided adequate evidence of the proposed policy’s effectiveness, nor an evaluation of less intrusive measures, to justify mandating vaccination."

Or the whole article for that matter.

On this note, I have a PhD that minored in biomedical engineering, read both the literature and GoC science, and work with microbiologists, whom I can quote as saying "We don't know" and "This seems draconian". Are we all fringe? Are we uninformed?

To continue this certainty, how about the GoC science itself. Vaccine advisory comes from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), whose Advisory Committee Statement -- long after these mandates were initiated -- states, "There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although studies are ongoing. Evidence of protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is emerging for the mRNA and Janssen vaccines." And, in the section "Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission" it states that "the current data is insufficient to draw conclusions" and AstroZeneca "has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection".

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines.html

Is NACI fringe or uninformed? Do the vaccines really reduce transmission? Is it really safer to be around a vaccinated person who was just in a restaurant with 50 other people, versus and unvaccinated remote worker who isn't allowed in a restaurant? Really? Based on what science? What risk calculation? (I get a different answer when I plug in the math.)

Or how about the vaccine manufacturers. Are they fringe and uninformed? They have to produce monthly product monographs submitted to Health Canada. For example, the Comirnaty monograph was last updated Nov 19 here: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Notably, Section 7 lists risks and is quite honest. It says, "It is unknown whether COMIRNATY has an impact on fertility." and "The safety and efficacy of COMIRNATY in pregnant women have not yet been established. It is unknown whether COMIRNATY is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for immunization against COVID-19."

The other vaccine monographs say the same thing. Are these manufacturers and Health Canada fringe and uninformed?

On that note, these vaccines themselves were approved in a process with a risk management plan, e.g., Cominaty: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatory-decision-summary-detail.html?linkID=RDS00856

It states: "An important limitation of the data is the lack of information on the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The identified limitations are managed through labelling and the Risk Management Plan RMP)." The RMP is also described in monitoring feedback and updating the product monographs. This is an excellent risk management plan because both the labelling and monographs diversify risk via one-on-one informed decision-making between patient and doctor. Coercive measures eliminate Health Canada's own risk mitigation strategy.

Other countries and states are ending or forgoing such mandates, such as the UK, something like 20 U.S. states, notably including Florida and Texas. Canada seems to be one of the most restrictive. Are they all fringe and uninformed? Are they worse off and unhappy with the results?

Did you know that the WHO recommends against getting booster shots except for those in high risk cases, and against vaccinating children: https://www.who.int/news/item/22-12-2021-interim-statement-on-booster-doses-for-covid-19-vaccination---update-22-december-2021

It looks to me that these truckers represent the mainstream science, bioethics, and risk management. All you have to do is actually read the scientific reviews and materials. Perhaps reading the actual materials is considered "fringe". Who would have thought.

How's that 'no bullshit' thing going?

Best to you and yours.

Edit: In case you want the other monographs:

Moderna's Spikevax, updated Dec. 23: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf

AstroZenica's Vaxzevria, from Nov 19: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf

J&J Janssen, updated Nov 23: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf

Updated with more details: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking

Expand full comment
116 more comments...

No posts