The best way to get out of this mess is to lift the mandates. The best way to ensure it never happens again is to resolve never again to rip up the Charter and expel 15% of Canadians from society. That's more than can be ruled through fear.
How can you demand more than no mandates? They aren't asking for money, just to be left alone and treated like other Canadians under the law. Once they have that, the movement is finished - in every respect.
Watch the press conferences with Lich and Dichter - they are the ones with the control of the GiveSendGo and in every presser they reiterate it is about mandates only. This "overturn parliament" thing is basically fake news - advanced by a fringe group, now withdrawn even by them, hyped up by legacy media and governments in order to justify refusing to negotiate.
That might be what they're saying now that they realize they are facing some serious prison time for sedition.
It's a bad first move to start your protest by demanding the overthrow of the government...and replacing them with you. Holy moly!
I want the mandates to end as soon as possible too! But I'm willing to wait for the medical community to say that it's a reasonable idea. I don't think we should be taking orders from nitwits and needle cowards who have no regard for doctors and nurses...or the rest of us.
"Not a while back", the mob leadership removed it yesterday (Thursday), probably following legal advice. I'm sure there are "some good people" in the mob but the leadership is entirely Trumpy. These are not serious people to negotiate anything about.
Fair point. But don't mistake a couple of the goals of a few of the more-politically-motivated early convoy leaders with the much more mandate-focused goals of the HUGE number of Canadians now stepping forward. And I could be wrong but methinks you ain't seen nothin' yet. Your "mob" "Trumpy" comments unfortunately lead me to believe that you have no interest in digging a little deeper into what about half of a country's people feel - That's really too bad as you'll miss a great opportunity to understand core elements of true diversity and democracy. But so be it, your definitely not on your own...and that is the real scary thing about this whole mess. Respect.
The word for what you conveying is called "spite", with a hefty dose of cynicism. It's has caused many a divorce, and worse, many a deadly war.
You ascribe bad faith intentions to them and only a lust for power, ergo if we negotiate, compromise, or give in, they'll just demand more. Like what? Would they get the same support? Do "they" collectively believe whatever policy you imagine is next?
When you dismiss the pain and suffering of your fellow human beings, and refuse to listen or consider moving an inch, and want a hard line approach to get rid of them, and the people that replace them, at what step do you realize that you've become the tyrant?
"First they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
When did we lose compassion for the pleas and suffering of our fellow humans? They are only gaining in support. This won't go away.
First, you are describing a process that you have even described as a method to disperse an "unruly crowd". It's meant for people on the streets during riots and violent protest, more or less. This is a protest filled with people hugging, dancing, feeding each other (and the homeless), shoveling the sidewalks, picking up garbage, and enjoying bouncy castles.
From your own source: “Once the mob starts thinking like dispirited individuals again,” my cop source told me, “the threat to public safety is mostly over.”
Does that apply here? Is this a "furious mob" (as you describe them)? Are they driven by mob mentality? If dispersed would they go back to thinking like dispirited individuals again, and stop their furious hugging, dancing, and bouncing and go back to their individualist, peaceful, shaking their fist at the TV at home?
The problem here is not an unruly, angry mob taken over by mob mentality where the solution is to make them act human again. It is a crowd of people acting more human than human already.
Second, the trucks. How do you plan to move the trucks? Even if you could find a tow-truck driver to move them it could take months. And nobody is willing to do that. The size of tow truck you need to do that work is itself a big rig and requires the same skills and licenses as the protesters. The people you need help from are the protesters, or support them. Good luck with that.
Third, the this is a well-organized national protest. They have teams of lawyers and supporters. How quickly do you think the drivers and protesters will be back there?
Fourth, there are lineups of people ready to take their place. Even if you get the people out and the trucks out, somehow, it will simply backfill with new trucks and new protesters. What are they to do -- block off the whole downtown indefinitely? That's worse off than the situation now. And, if they do, they'll just create a new protest nearby. It's happening in Alberta and Windsor now already. You don't think there'd be more?
The problem I see in your plan is that you still seem to be thinking about this all wrong, as if it is a post-Stanley Cup riot. It isn't. This is a national, grassroots movement to fundamentally respect human rights and human needs.
Did you interview individual protestors? Try watching the live streams. There are hundreds of hours available, continually adding up. Ottawalks is a good observer. Viva Frei (David Freiheit) is walking through the downtown almost daily and interviewing people nonstop, asking where they are from, what they are there for, and their own backstories. It is live and unedited. It is not narrative-driven propaganda; it is journaling what is going on. One might even call this interview-style presentation as ... journalism?
There's a high percentage of immigrants interviewed, many of them who moved here from tyrannical countries. They all have an amazingly similar interpretation that the government policies here are very reminiscent of the ones they ran away from. That's newsworthy.
If you are worried about the few people who might be prone toward violence -- but have not yet really acted given that the crime rate has apparently gone down in the area -- I have a better plan. Instead of pulling all of those people off the bouncy castle and arresting them for too much hugging and dancing like you are John Lithgow in Footloose, how about we get an expert at picking out the "hard men" (I know of one!) and point them out to the police, and just arrest those ones before they commit acts of violence. We could call it the pre-crime unit.
If you want to end the actual protest, including Ottawa, Windsor, Alberta, and all future ones to replace the ones that somehow get shut down, that's easy. Advise the federal government to talk with them and put in a plan for easing COVID restrictions. As the organizers have said repeatedly, what they are asking for is an end to the vaccine mandates and passports: https://youtu.be/mKMAOFCpVfQ
It even includes such wisdom as, "achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio" and "Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals."
The policy was led by Canadian Maxwell Smith at Western U who specialized in population-level bioethics, infectious disease ethics, and health policy. It references and mirrors similar policies by other groups like the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, who have also come out against mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports:
"“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.”
And in October 2021 made the statement that, ""the Government has not provided adequate evidence of the proposed policy’s effectiveness, nor an evaluation of less intrusive measures, to justify mandating vaccination."
The WHO is also opposed to vaccinating children and boosters (except in high-risk categories) as an unnecessary overuse of vaccines that fit what it has called a "castrophic moral failure". You can read more about all of this here, with links: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
But, following the science, risk management, and health policy experts is just a suggestion. The fact that the truckers agree with them is a mere coincidence. Clearly we know that a drama teacher knows best. You can read all about the scientific basis for his views in the, uh, well, the scientific analysis that concludes this is the right thing to do. You know the name of that public report, right? I keep forgetting its name. It's the one that concludes from meta analysis of the science that the best way to move forward is to punish people who don't vaccinate.
Now, I've never read that scientific report, nor seen a link or heard of its existence. I've only read the ones that say the opposite like those above. But, I'm sure you have, and the PM has. And the rest of the media. Can you provide a link to it, please. That way we can refer to exactly what it concludes.
I'll promise I'll read it over a relaxing tea. I'm already warming up the kettle.
I start by repeating your own words.... "Where to begin" ?
Your lengthy critique focuses on quibbles with the original piece by Matt Gurney..
A few facts:
- A disproportionate share of the deaths for the last 6 months have been suffered by unvaccinated people, We have all seen multiple exhausted doctors and nurses interviewed on TV attest to this. Government sources say the the same thing. True, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro and you, apparently, disagree.
- Most truckers are vaccinated and very few are not.
- Many protesters are not truckers but the truckers bring the equipment, which is the force of the argument. The logic is nowhere to be found
- Everyone is fed up with Covid but most of us believe that, on balance, Canada has done a reasonable job of dealing with a very difficult and evolving pandemic.
- The death rate per capita in the US is 3 times higher than in Canada. Why? The answer is because too many Americans, encouraged by people like yourself, espouse the same remedies as our Occupiers propose. Most Canadians understand this and this is why you do not have enough support to continue.
- The horrific, unexpected Omicron wave has begun to wane so measures taken to combat it are already being removed making many of the protesters demands moot.
1. Yes, it is probably unwise for most unvaccinated people to chose to be unvaccinated. But, it is a fundamental human right for them to make that choice and well-established in Charter Section 7 precedence, which "includes the right to refuse medical treatment": https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
Notably, from A.C. v. Manitoba, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181: "Security of the person has an element of personal autonomy, protecting the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to decisions concerning their own body. It is part of the persona and dignity of the human being that he or she have the autonomy to decide what is best for his or her body. "
From Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307, at para. 49: “. . . ‘liberty’ is engaged where state compulsions or prohibitions affect important and fundamental life choices”
From Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, at para. 66: “[T]he right to liberty . . . protects within its ambit the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference”
From Rodriguez, Sopinka J. for the majority confirmed that the concept of security of the person encompasses “a notion of personal autonomy involving, at the very least, control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference and freedom from state-imposed psychological and emotional stress”
From R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, at p. 56 (per Dickson C.J.). "An order for treatment of an unwilling minor may also impinge on her “security of the person”, which protects a person’s interest in “bodily integrity”
2. Vaccination status is not the correct dividing line.
(a) Unvaccinated people with natural immunity from prior COVID-19 are as well-protected as vaccination from the pooled analysis of evidence: "While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. ... Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference."
In 2019, there were 160 deaths for aged 0-19. Total since first death on January 25, 2020 from COVID there have been 29 deaths aged 0-19 to Feb 11, 2022, which works out to 14 people per year, or 11.4 times more people in the age range dying in car accidents. If the goals is to save these people, banning motor vehicles is a far better option than mandatory vaccination.
If the goals is to help with exhausted doctors then mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports is not the answer. You might make an argument for mandatory vaccination past 65, but you might do better mandating exercise and healthy eating passports.
That is, obesity kills about 26,530 per year vs COVID-19 at 17,192 per year.
About 17% of deaths per year (in 2002) were from smoking, which in that year was 230,000 deaths or 39,100 per year, more than double from COVID-19. If that carries forward to 2019, it would be 48,496 or almost 3 times as many as from COVID-19.
I don't think you have prioritized correctly.
At no point have I said anything about hospital issues. My wife was an emergency nurse who suffered tremendously from chronically understaffed hospitals and still suffers the consequences. Your statement is completely unrelated to anything I said and is entirely uncalled for. And, you are presenting it dishonestly by trying to create "guilt by association" by picking out people you dislike and trying to associate me with them. That is dishonesty.
People who agree with me about offering vaccines to individuals for personal informed choice include the World Health Organization, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (from which the Government of Canada gets its vaccine advice), Health Canada via their risk management plan for the vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers via their monthly updated vaccine product monographs, all of the protesters, and 46% of Canadians, including 61% of 18-34 year olds:
Yes, most truckers are vaccinated. As am I. As is my family. What have I said that in any way would contradict that? The issue here is fundamental human rights and the use of vaccine mandates and passports to create a class of "untouchables" and a two-tier society. There is no scientific basis for using vaccination status in this way.
Put another way, treating unvaccinated people as if they are a risk is like treating Muslims as if they are at risk of being a terrorists or black people are at risk of being criminals, and so limiting their movement based on that status.
You say, "Many protesters are not truckers but the truckers bring the equipment, which is the force of the argument. The logic is nowhere to be found". I can't find any coherence in that statement. What is it you are claiming, is it supposed to be disagreeing with something I said, and if so, then what?
"Everyone is fed up with Covid but most of us believe that, on balance, Canada has done a reasonable job of dealing with a very difficult and evolving pandemic."
Sure. Not too bad at first, and arguably up until about August 2021, and even tolerable until about October with the implementation of mandatory vaccinations and vaccine passports in direct contradiction to all of the scientific recommendations and human rights.
"The answer is because too many Americans, encouraged by people like yourself, espouse the same remedies as our Occupiers propose. "
By way of comparison, Israel has been well above Canada almost the whole time in vaccination rate and yet have had many more cases and deaths. You are just arguing from incredulity. You know the answer you want and so are claiming that any bad outcomes are because of reasons that you disagree with.
But, as I say, this is not about whether vaccines are good or not, but where it is up to individual choice. Nothing you have said suggests otherwise.
"Most Canadians understand this and this is why you do not have enough support to continue."
If that is what Canadians understand, then they are misinformed and unscientific, as you are being. But, as I noted in the long list of organizations and people who support this, there is massive global, scientific, and even Canadian support for getting rid of these mandates.
"The horrific, unexpected Omicron wave has begun to wane so measures taken to combat it are already being removed making many of the protesters demands moot."
Great, then there is no reason for the political leaders to not sit down with the protesters and work out a deal for them both to be happy. Heck, the government could make the protestors look foolish (or moot) if that plan has existed. (Can you point me to a link for that plan?) Yet, the government is refusing to even talk to them or budge, keeps calling them childish names, increasing support for them, and making themselves look foolish. Heck, multiple Liberals are even coming out against Trudeau.
If such a plan exists, what is keeping them from ending this whole thing now? Spite? Is that a leadership quality?
"Enough said"
Apparently not. We are having an impass. I have repeatedly pointed to all of the scientific reports, policies, risk management plans, monographs, and recommendations that directly contract the current, all cited and quoted, all of them being the Canadian national scientific basis, and nobody has said what is wrong with any of them. All I get back are baseless, off-topic, uncited, non-sequitur claims that are just repeating what some politician or news anchor said.
How about reading some of it. It's all laid out in detail:
Other than science, what other forms of authority could we follow? So the press conference today, the PM says his usual about the science. He could have substituted 'science' for 'history', and the overall meaning would remained the same: We are following the advice of those we trust.
Maybe we need more historians and philosophers on these advisory boards.
There is certainly a difference between "the science" and a person saying what the science says. The PM is making claims about what the science says but can't point to where he's getting it from, and what is available from his own government (Health Canada, NACI) and international health policy orgs (WHO, bioethics orgs) contradict him.
The issue seems to be that many people just have deeply held blind trust. I don't mean that they just believe what they are told. I'll generally believe it is likely true too. But, believing it is infallible and beyond question, and doesn't require showing the receipts are all problems.
There's a saying we had at NASA, "I'm God we trust; everybody else brings data." Many people seem to treat their leaders and press like a god in that respect.
This bad reasoning to me looks like a problem of tribal psychology; "My party/media/team tells me something is true, so I must believe it and defend it else I'll be a traitor to my tribe and help the enemy tribe win."
I think we need more psychologists, economists, and devils advocates, and generally embrace the disagreements and stop vilifying those that disagree. Diverse views and input are critical.
Pay attention to section 7 where they say effects on fertility, pregnancy, and breastfeeding are not yet established and risk to the infant cannot be ruled out.
Also note the risk mitigation plan based on informed consent from considering opposing risks, which is also central to the Health Canada risk mitigation plan for the vaccines, and the NACI recommendations for vaccines use, as I've written about and linked to in the articles below.
Also in there are the NACI recommendation differences between "should be offered to" and "may be offered to", and the Health Canada approvals based on overall risk-benefit overall that people can use it, not that everyone should or that every individual's cost-benefit says that they should take it.
Then there's the WHO and Nuffield Council on Bioethics statements and analysis in opposition to mandatory vaccination and passports. And even the WHO opposition policies to boosters and vaccinating children and adolescents.
I could go on and point out many of the contradicting journal articles, and the populations level data and Johns Hopkins, but this is why I put them in articles so that you can read it in one place and check the links yourself.
That's how science works, not by decree from an authority. I welcome links to reports or analyses showing the effectiveness of our policies in optimizing outcomes. If anyone has some.
For now, here are my summaries with links to sources:
I’ve heard this idea that it’s too hard to move the trucks, and it’s mostly bravado. The first thing that happens is that the protestors are removed from the area. Then the trucks are removes, either by driving them away (seize keys, use locksmiths, etc), with tow trucks (a lot harder to intimidate the operators when the protesters aren’t around), with Army wreckers or armored recovery vehicles (they can tow a disabled Leopard 2 tank - they’ll do a semi easily), or defueled and disposed of with demolition equipment.
They also estimate 250 trucks downtown. How long would that take? They mention 300 to 400 additional trucks that were ready to come in.
Again, it seems a futile game of 'whack-a-mole', especially given that the approach of actually negotiating works, as noted in the article, and what they are asking for is perfectly aligned with global health policy and what other jurisdictions are doing. There's a really easy option here, with a lot of scientific, public, and international support.
It would take days to remove all of the trucks, but they'd be removed. Making it clear that they're getting removed one way or another might shake loose some who don't want to end up in jail with their truck seized, damaged, or destroyed.
As for negotiation, probably not. It's a terrible precedent to give into any angry group that can blockade a city or transportation infrastructure. COVID restrictions were already set to be loosened before this protest took place, and the protesters have likely impeded that process. Of course, that kind of plays into their whole self-destructive schtick: being aggressively, stupidly opposed to vaccination when the evidence is clear that the vaccines are effective and safe. This is basically the equivalent of conducting a protest because the police won't let you sit in the middle of the street pounding your own crotch with a hammer as you scream "Freedom!!"
Let's just do the math on that. If it will take days, that implies less than a week. If they worked around the clock, 24 hours per day, that is removing 1 truck every 24 minutes. That's certainly possible with enough tow trucks, drivers, Army wreckers, or heavy lift helicopters, or whatever you envision, but that's ultimately the question of how many are willing and/or available. And, it would still have a big impact on traffic flow from downtown to wherever they tow them to, which has to be close enough to unload and return fast enough to maintain the 24 minute average.
Definitely difficult.
If restrictions were set to be removed, then that would be an easy solution for the government to use those as a means to get the drivers to leave. The implication then is the steadfast refusal of the government to even talk is just out of spite, which is a terrible precedent for government behaviour. They could both end it and make the truckers look foolish by pointing to the public plan that you are referring to. I can even send it to them if you can forward me the link to that public plan.
As for the precedent about an "angry mob", that alone is strange given the precedence of recent years in the U.S. of giving in to angry BLM and Antifa mobs, and Canada giving in to similar angry protesters.
But, what angry mob are you talking about here? I think you need to go watch hours of live streams from the protests. You might try Ottawalks, Zed, or Viva Frei. This is a love-in. People are hugging, dancing, and many saying they finally feel proud to be Canadian again. Francophone Quebecois and English Albertans hugging in unity. Immigrants comparing these mandates and the propaganda tactics used by the government and media to the tyrannies they left, and being proud to stand up for human rights.
I think the problem is that critics like yourself are picturing this entirely from your perspective and from what narratives you get from the corporate media. To understand what you are up against you have to go right to the source of the protesters and what they believe they are doing and why. That's why the live streams help.
If it helps to get you in the right frame of mind, imagine instead of COVID, this was another 9/11 but in Canada, and the government has put in place restrictions that Muslims couldn't travel, couldn't work, weren't allowed in certain places, and you had to get a card declaring your personal beliefs and denouncing Islam. Imagine the reason the government gives is that Muslims are dangerous, and are a threat to our kids, and point to the various groups and ISIS, etc. as proof that the "science" agrees.
Now imagine both Muslims and liberally amended people are outraged at this violation of human rights, and create a truckers movement to protest to remove these restrictions. And they do so peacefully, and hug in unity about caring for their fellow human beings.
Would you just call them an angry mob? Would you tell them to go home? Would you think this is just a matter of clearing them out? Or do you think they would continue the fight no matter what. Would you just give up, go home, and let your government continue to violate human rights like that?
I'm not saying you need to agree with them, or even the analogy. I'm just trying to help you to understand that the people you are criticising, and the importance to them on what they are doing, and why so many Canadians lined the highways in support and continue to support and give money. They see this as heroic and fundamental human rights. Whether it is freedom of religion or freedom of conscience and what medical procedure to take (protected by Section 7), it's what they believe.
Just as confusing being Muslim with being an Islamic terrorist is a fundamental error creating injustice and human rights violation, so to is confusing being unvaccinated with being COVID-positive. Those aren't even close to the same thing, yet people act like they are in the same way as Islamophobes treat Muslims as if they are extremists.
Again, the point isn't that you have yo agree with the analogy; the point is for you to think how would you feel IF it were the Muslim case, and realize that is the kind of feeling they and supporters have about this movement.
You don't even seem aware of what they are standing for. They aren't anti-vaccine. They are against vaccine mandates and passports, the same as the WHO, various bioethics orgs, and a heck of a lot of scientists and doctors.
As to simply taking Tue vaccines, it is also safe and effective to end Islamist extremism worldwide if everybody would just disavow Islam. Do you think we should mandate that? I don't. In fact, that would certainly end the Islamist extremism, but if everybody in Canada got vaccinated it wouldn't end COVID-19 or even come close.
And, by the way, even the vaccine manufacturers and Health Canada in the vaccine monographs and risk management plan don't claim they are safe. E.g., Section 7 of the monthly updated monographs still say it is unknown if they affect fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and can not eliminate risks to the infant.
The risk management plan and the NACI recommendations are based on uncoerced informed consent.
So, yes, the protestors are in agreement with the WHO, bioethics councils, NACI recommendations, and Health Canada's own risk management plan.
It's just that our politicians, press, and public who listen to them don't tend to bother to read them.
They just say the risk-benefit overall is sufficient to allow people to take them.
Edit: incidentally, many of them have removed their tires and some reportedly cut or disconnected their break lines. They've "burned the ships", metaphorically speaking.
Awesome. That's in the third last paragraph so you are onboard with most of it.
The point, which I thought was obvious (though I'll admit said sarcastically), is that the PM keeps claiming what the science says but (a) he has no science background, (b) he won't point to where it says what he claims. The science brain trust for federal COVID-19 is the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), and they don't recommend mandatory vaccination in any of their reports or statements that I can find. In fact, they directly contradict it in many cases, including recommending informed consent and that vaccines either "should be offered" in cases where the cost-benefit is good, and in other cases is "may be offered" which they define as other options being just as good.
As far as "stick to the science", that is almost universally against mandatory vaccination. That's my point. As far as "follow the money", that sounds like when people say the mandatory vaccination, and lack of public data, and silencing of critics, and silencing of theraputics, is all about enriching "big pharma". Is that where you want me to follow the money?
(Edit: If you mean the support money via GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, there were 124,000 donators on GoFundMe, mostly in small donations, most with names. The biggest was $30,000 and those few in that range were from identified small businesses. If you have evidence of significant nefarious sources, let's see the data.)
Ah, an appeal to authority. He's a smart guy, a political authority, and other smart politicians think he's a smart politician, therefore he must be right. Is that the argument? That's not how reasoning or science work. That's just saying you trust what he says.
You say, "In terms of following the science he has always deferred to the health experts who work in Ottawa."
Really? Are you sure about that? I am an Ottawa scientist, and work with microbiologists, and I don't know of any of them who agree. Where can we find the reports of these "health experts who work in Ottawa" that conclude that mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports are the best way forward?
He always defers to them? In October 2021 after the election he put in the federal mandates on federal employees for vaccination, "Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police": https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32694
Given the existing Section 7 Charter right to decide for yourself what medical procedures to undergo, the legality of this mandate is based on a hierarchy of rights in which the right of your co-workers to be "safe" from an unvaccinated person supercedes the right of the unvaccinated person to make that choice for themselves. Specifically, it claims, "those working remotely and teleworking must be fully vaccinated to protect themselves, colleagues, and clients from COVID-19." The claim then and ongoing has been the believe that unvaccinated people are more likely to transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus to you than a vaccinated person.
With respect to transmission, it states the following in the Summary: "There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2."
There is also a section entitled “Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission”. It notes the data is preliminary, that “current data is insufficient to draw conclusions”, and “Exploratory analyses for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection”.
In fact, this belief that a remote-working unvaccinated person is a higher risk to be around than a vaccinated person seems to have no basis in science anywhere, and is even ludicrous when you try to do the math.
The risk of transmission is the product of three components, the probability of being exposed, the probability of becoming infected given exposure, and the probability of transmission given infection.
"[T]he virus is most frequently transmitted when people are in close contact with others who are infected with the virus (either with or without symptoms). We also know that most transmission occurs indoors. Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were suspended in the air and that people inhaled the virus at distances beyond 2 metres. Such settings have included choir practice, fitness classes, and restaurants …"
These are all places that unvaccinated people aren't/weren't allowed, even in October 2021. Yet vaccinated people were allowed there in large numbers. Even I met with big groups in pubs with the order of 100 people in them. All of us could have been infected by the virus and wouldn't know it, because the vaccines work to keep us from being symptomatic: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/the-vaccines-work-thats-a-problem
Or, how about this from Health Canada, "Your vaccination status only changes your risk of getting COVID-19 and becoming sick. It doesn't change your risk of exposure to the virus out in the community."
As noted in the scientific literature (linked to in the above link), we have no idea if the elimination of symptoms means that vaccinated people are more likely to spread it, not know they have it, and shed it without ever knowing, versus unvaccinated people who are far more likely to become symptomatic (which is why we take the vaccines in the first place).
The second and third terms are the ones that NACI said was too limited to make any conclusions. But if you look at the available literature even at the time, the third term, transmissibility, does not appear to be different between vaccinated and unvaccinated once infected. For the second term, infection, the NACI said "we don't know", which is fine. But if we look at the data at the time it suggested variations on the order of 0% to 70% depending on the vaccine and variant, and this was before Omicron.
So, a remote working unvaccinated person is probably the safest person to be around. You know they have limited exposure because they work remotely, and you know they aren't allowed where most of the transmission happens.
Even if we ignore the other two terms, and take the worst case scenario for infection, for Pfizer it seemed to average around 50% to 70% reduction in infection (prior to Delta and Omicron). That means the relative risk calculation would show an unvaccinated person would be as risky to be around as 2 or 3 vaccinated people. Per the mandate, a remote worker required to come on site ad hoc (without accommodation at all) would be at worst equivalent to 2 or 3 vaccinated people.
None of this mandate stuff came from NACI or the "health experts who work in Ottawa", unless there is some secret report based on secret unpublished peer-reviewed publications. Where it did come from is the campaign trail. Notably, on Aug 31 in Sudbury, ON, he referred to the unvaccinated as "those people" and said "“And more than just being wrong, ‘cause everyone is entitled to their opinion, they are putting at risk their own kids, and they’re putting at risk our kids as well. That’s why we’ve been unequivocal. If you want to get on a plane or a train in the coming months, you’re going to have to be fully vaccinated. So families with their kids don’t have to worry that somebody is going to put them in danger in the seat next to them or across the aisle.
And we know that the way to get through this as well is to make sure that people can go into non-essential businesses and feel safe that they’re not going to catch COVID from someone next to them. And that means we’re going to work with provinces and territories who want to move forward on vaccination certifications, on vaccination passports, so that everyone can be safe. And what’s more, the federal government has announced that we’re going to pay for the development of those privileges that you get once you get vaccinated. Because everyone needs to get vaccinated and those people are putting us all at risk.”
Nothing here is scientific and none of it comes "health experts who work in Ottawa". It is demagoguery. He's trying to make you afraid of unvaccinated people, or he himself is irrationally afraid of them. Not only was all of his argument based on the belief that unvaccinated people are COVID-positive and highly contagious, and much riskier to be around than a vaccinated person, but he's claiming children are at risk from unvaccinated people.
Children 0-19 are 13 times more likely to die in car accidents by Statistics Canada's own data. His tour bus was a bigger risk to kids than unvaccinated people are.
To be clear on the math too, after 2 years only 7% of the population have had COVID-19. At roughly 100 weeks, that means at any given time, about 0.07% of the population have COVID-19 on average, or 1 in about 1500.
I say per week because that is about the longest a person can be contagious, so at worst case there is about a 1 in 1500 chance a person you are with may be currently contagious. Put another way, you need to be in the presence of about 1500 people to expect that at least 1 has COVID-19 and is contagious. To catch it you need to be in an enclosed airspace enough for it, and your vaccination status will mean that at least 95% of the time you are in this situation your antibodies will keep you from getting COVID-19.
Taking the worst case again, if vaccinated people are, in fact, ~50% less risk of transmitting to you, that's roughly 0.07% chance (unvaccinated) vs 0.035% chance (vaccinated), or 99.93% chance the unvaccinated person is harmless to you and 99.965% chance the vaccinated person is harmless to you, as far as transmission.
None of this was driven by science or "health experts who work in Ottawa". It is "us vs them" tribal psychology driving irrational fear.
It is contradicted by the WHO, NACI, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Health Canada. The federal microbiologists I talked to included quotes that the mandates were "draconian" and that we can all, vaccinated or unvaccinated, be a 'Typhoid Mary', and "We just don't know." All of these aren't just smart people, they are also smart people who know the science and are experts at it.
If you disagree and know of a specific scientific analysis or report recommending these mandates, please point them out. I once trusted the political and press representation until I actually started reading the actual science, including NACI, Health Canada, WHO, and journal articles.
It does not say what he says the science says. More importantly, it is the wrong question; the question isn't whether vaccines will solve all of our problems, but whether vaccine mandates and passports achieve those goals. The science is quite clear that the answer is no on that.
And, we haven't even gotten into the other harms. The goal is not to blindly just aim to minimize COVID-19, but to minimize overall harm including the damage of the mandates and lockdowns across domains including economics, mental health, learning, supplies, and child development. None of this is being done properly or scientifically.
LMAO, Butts is a very smart guy, I imagine he spotted Trudeau at McGill and thought this idiot could be useful.
Nothing in Trudeau pre-politics life or his record in parliament suggests he is smart. Quite the opposite. I could list examples all day... blackface, peoplekind, "Trudeau eulogies" (remember that), India trip, Tofino on his first National Reconciliation Day.... it's endless.
Add to that his public speaking. I mean, Good God, he sounds like a cross between William Shatner and a high school valedictorian!
There is no doubt that he is politically talented. The Liberals went from 3rd place to winning 184 seats in 2015. He was able to increase voter turnout among young people. Trudeau's policies are certainly far more progressive than what Chretien, Paul Martin would have implemented. I am concerned that once the pandemic ends, will the country be willing or able to begin repaying the debts that were incurred during the crisis ?
The pandemic has had severe economic consequences for those in the hospitality, tourism & arts. The civil servants & office workers have been able to save more money because they don't have to spend money on commuting to the offices etc
Would any future government try and rebalance the economic situation by imposing more taxes on the "laptop class" in order to rebuild the restaurant & tourism sectors ?
Yes let’s follow the money of the Laurentian elites and see how China has bought them. Let’s see how Canada is being torn asunder by a movement set on creating a world where places like Canada cede their independence to totalitarian mad men.
Just subscribed. Your close coverage of the Ottawa siege convinced me this was worth paying for. As suspected, there's a hard core of foreign-funded and experienced insurrectionists surrounded by a protective moat of impressionable fools. This is a pivotal point in Canadian history; an essentially foreign populist authoritarian movement with ties to Trumpism and its allies are now occupying the nation's capital. Essential reporting ... keep up the good work.
I'm sure they're in a race to get that info to us in competition with the FDA releasing the data from the Pfizer trials. I'll leave a message for my grandkids to take a look at it after my kids grow up, have kids, and they grow to adults. Then we'll know for sure who these meddling kids were.
Not at all. I'm fully vaccinated, as is my family. They are pretty good under the circumstances, though I agree with the WHO so far that children don't need vaccination (mine are), and people who are not in high-risk categories should not get a booster. (The risk-benefit ratio for these isn't good, and it is more beneficial to get those doses to poorer countries who are still struggling to get first doses.)
Or, do you mean you've just decided what is true or not based on whatever your political tribe says is true or not? Anything that goes against your beliefs is "discredited", perhaps?
Say Trudeau drops the mandate? So what? They still can't get across the border because of the US mandate! And maybe if they get arrested here and lose their truck or get themselves a criminal record, they won't be going back to the USA for a long time!
We need a government with enough wisdom to see that these mandstes are incredibly divisive and do not stop the spread of the virus. Its not about who wins. Its about what's best for the country.
As I was writing my response, Ad Nausica wrote a brilliant piece. But in order to have 'my say', here is what I am thinking:
I agree that the blockades need to end. However, I would just ask for a little creative thinking about solutions that build instead of destroy. I'm still shocked that a back channel to the Ottawa truckers has not been set-up to try and de-escalate the situation. And if clearing Windsor goes badly, I worry that more blockades could pop up leading to civil unrest across the country, if not the continent.
I also think people underestimate how challenging clearing the Ottawa blockade will be. There is a lot of support in Ottawa for the blockade from ordinary citizens, as is evidenced by the food and fuel that keeps pouring into the downtown core.
Reducing the rhetoric would go a long way to de-escalating the situation. A heavy-handed use of force will backfire in deepening the divisions in our social fabric and increasing the growing distrust of our institutions.
If what we really want is everyone who can get vaccinated to get vaccinated, we should change our strategy. If we want a scapegoat to carry the burden of this mismanaged crisis, we've already got one.
"and America can't tolerate a neighbour that can't keep its problems on their side of the border." I find it interesting that the US is so concerned about this northern crossing while they seem to have no interest in controlling what is happening along their southern border.
Remember that the chief of the Toronto Police during the G20 fiasco is now our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada. How is that working out?
I believe separation of powers is in the Constitution not the Charter. Regardless, if someone is in charge of Emergency Preparedness for all of Canada, they should be looking at our borders and national capital.
The vaccine passports to enter restaurants or gyms made more sense when the science at the time indicated that vaccinated people were less likely to spread the Coronavirus. Omicron changed that theory & now it appears that everyone can spread the virus despite their vaccination status. Prior to the holidays, vaccinated Canadians were led to believe that gyms, restaurants etc would stay open for them even if there was a rise in cases, but the governments ended up shutting them down for everyone. Trudeau was opposed to mandatory vaccine mandates in 2020, but now strongly defends them. It appears that he is fighting the last war.
I don't know why Trudeau decided now was the time to implement the vaccine mandates for truckers now when there is less scientific justification for them now. Is it possible that he views truckers as a good political target since they are less likely to vote for him ?
I wonder if Trudeau would have forced a vaccine mandate on certain ethnic groups or any group that was more likely to vote for him ?
I am amused that the Quebec Premier Legault had to reverse his policy on vaccine mandates for health care workers because he realized the staff shortages would get worse & he would be blamed for the collapse of the health care system.
It seems to me that it a trucker has less physical contact with people than health care workers who are treating patients who are already sick with other diseases.
Thank you for your considered analysis. You've given all of us much food for thought; WRT your assessment of the response by all levels of government, I wholeheartedly concur. Not one of them has covered themselves in glory. I have particular disregard for the political hacks who have sought to make partisan hay before addressing the more pressing needs of the day.
Wish I'd read this before watching the OPSB question their chief & deputy chief (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8WiGUm-P7w). Would have had more sympathy for his remarks about "resources".
The best way to get out of this mess is to lift the mandates. The best way to ensure it never happens again is to resolve never again to rip up the Charter and expel 15% of Canadians from society. That's more than can be ruled through fear.
How can you demand more than no mandates? They aren't asking for money, just to be left alone and treated like other Canadians under the law. Once they have that, the movement is finished - in every respect.
Watch the press conferences with Lich and Dichter - they are the ones with the control of the GiveSendGo and in every presser they reiterate it is about mandates only. This "overturn parliament" thing is basically fake news - advanced by a fringe group, now withdrawn even by them, hyped up by legacy media and governments in order to justify refusing to negotiate.
That might be what they're saying now that they realize they are facing some serious prison time for sedition.
It's a bad first move to start your protest by demanding the overthrow of the government...and replacing them with you. Holy moly!
I want the mandates to end as soon as possible too! But I'm willing to wait for the medical community to say that it's a reasonable idea. I don't think we should be taking orders from nitwits and needle cowards who have no regard for doctors and nurses...or the rest of us.
Actually, he isn't. Follow the money.
Little late and out of touch there dude. They removed that a while back.
"Not a while back", the mob leadership removed it yesterday (Thursday), probably following legal advice. I'm sure there are "some good people" in the mob but the leadership is entirely Trumpy. These are not serious people to negotiate anything about.
Fair point. But don't mistake a couple of the goals of a few of the more-politically-motivated early convoy leaders with the much more mandate-focused goals of the HUGE number of Canadians now stepping forward. And I could be wrong but methinks you ain't seen nothin' yet. Your "mob" "Trumpy" comments unfortunately lead me to believe that you have no interest in digging a little deeper into what about half of a country's people feel - That's really too bad as you'll miss a great opportunity to understand core elements of true diversity and democracy. But so be it, your definitely not on your own...and that is the real scary thing about this whole mess. Respect.
The word for what you conveying is called "spite", with a hefty dose of cynicism. It's has caused many a divorce, and worse, many a deadly war.
You ascribe bad faith intentions to them and only a lust for power, ergo if we negotiate, compromise, or give in, they'll just demand more. Like what? Would they get the same support? Do "they" collectively believe whatever policy you imagine is next?
When you dismiss the pain and suffering of your fellow human beings, and refuse to listen or consider moving an inch, and want a hard line approach to get rid of them, and the people that replace them, at what step do you realize that you've become the tyrant?
"First they ignore you. Then they mock you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
When did we lose compassion for the pleas and suffering of our fellow humans? They are only gaining in support. This won't go away.
So, where to begin.
First, you are describing a process that you have even described as a method to disperse an "unruly crowd". It's meant for people on the streets during riots and violent protest, more or less. This is a protest filled with people hugging, dancing, feeding each other (and the homeless), shoveling the sidewalks, picking up garbage, and enjoying bouncy castles.
From your own source: “Once the mob starts thinking like dispirited individuals again,” my cop source told me, “the threat to public safety is mostly over.”
Does that apply here? Is this a "furious mob" (as you describe them)? Are they driven by mob mentality? If dispersed would they go back to thinking like dispirited individuals again, and stop their furious hugging, dancing, and bouncing and go back to their individualist, peaceful, shaking their fist at the TV at home?
The problem here is not an unruly, angry mob taken over by mob mentality where the solution is to make them act human again. It is a crowd of people acting more human than human already.
Second, the trucks. How do you plan to move the trucks? Even if you could find a tow-truck driver to move them it could take months. And nobody is willing to do that. The size of tow truck you need to do that work is itself a big rig and requires the same skills and licenses as the protesters. The people you need help from are the protesters, or support them. Good luck with that.
Third, the this is a well-organized national protest. They have teams of lawyers and supporters. How quickly do you think the drivers and protesters will be back there?
Fourth, there are lineups of people ready to take their place. Even if you get the people out and the trucks out, somehow, it will simply backfill with new trucks and new protesters. What are they to do -- block off the whole downtown indefinitely? That's worse off than the situation now. And, if they do, they'll just create a new protest nearby. It's happening in Alberta and Windsor now already. You don't think there'd be more?
The problem I see in your plan is that you still seem to be thinking about this all wrong, as if it is a post-Stanley Cup riot. It isn't. This is a national, grassroots movement to fundamentally respect human rights and human needs.
Did you interview individual protestors? Try watching the live streams. There are hundreds of hours available, continually adding up. Ottawalks is a good observer. Viva Frei (David Freiheit) is walking through the downtown almost daily and interviewing people nonstop, asking where they are from, what they are there for, and their own backstories. It is live and unedited. It is not narrative-driven propaganda; it is journaling what is going on. One might even call this interview-style presentation as ... journalism?
There's a high percentage of immigrants interviewed, many of them who moved here from tyrannical countries. They all have an amazingly similar interpretation that the government policies here are very reminiscent of the ones they ran away from. That's newsworthy.
If you are worried about the few people who might be prone toward violence -- but have not yet really acted given that the crime rate has apparently gone down in the area -- I have a better plan. Instead of pulling all of those people off the bouncy castle and arresting them for too much hugging and dancing like you are John Lithgow in Footloose, how about we get an expert at picking out the "hard men" (I know of one!) and point them out to the police, and just arrest those ones before they commit acts of violence. We could call it the pre-crime unit.
If you want to end the actual protest, including Ottawa, Windsor, Alberta, and all future ones to replace the ones that somehow get shut down, that's easy. Advise the federal government to talk with them and put in a plan for easing COVID restrictions. As the organizers have said repeatedly, what they are asking for is an end to the vaccine mandates and passports: https://youtu.be/mKMAOFCpVfQ
There's even guidance on how to do that. The World Health Organization has a pretty good 6-point plan for what mandatory vaccination should look like called "COVID-19 and mandatory vaccination: Ethical considerations and caveats": https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1
It even includes such wisdom as, "achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio" and "Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals."
This is the same WHO who declared in Dec 2021 that vaccine mandates are an 'absolute last resort': https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vaccine-mandates-absolute-last-resort-who-europe-head-says-2021-12-07/
And repeated it in January 2022: https://www.news.com.au/national/who-says-vaccine-mandates-should-be-a-last-resort-amid-djokovic-saga/news-story/b4de0ad6d98e52553c5c2cd62302c6ad
The policy was led by Canadian Maxwell Smith at Western U who specialized in population-level bioethics, infectious disease ethics, and health policy. It references and mirrors similar policies by other groups like the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, who have also come out against mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports:
"“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.”
And in October 2021 made the statement that, ""the Government has not provided adequate evidence of the proposed policy’s effectiveness, nor an evaluation of less intrusive measures, to justify mandating vaccination."
The WHO is also opposed to vaccinating children and boosters (except in high-risk categories) as an unnecessary overuse of vaccines that fit what it has called a "castrophic moral failure". You can read more about all of this here, with links: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
But, following the science, risk management, and health policy experts is just a suggestion. The fact that the truckers agree with them is a mere coincidence. Clearly we know that a drama teacher knows best. You can read all about the scientific basis for his views in the, uh, well, the scientific analysis that concludes this is the right thing to do. You know the name of that public report, right? I keep forgetting its name. It's the one that concludes from meta analysis of the science that the best way to move forward is to punish people who don't vaccinate.
Now, I've never read that scientific report, nor seen a link or heard of its existence. I've only read the ones that say the opposite like those above. But, I'm sure you have, and the PM has. And the rest of the media. Can you provide a link to it, please. That way we can refer to exactly what it concludes.
I'll promise I'll read it over a relaxing tea. I'm already warming up the kettle.
This was a brilliant response.
I start by repeating your own words.... "Where to begin" ?
Your lengthy critique focuses on quibbles with the original piece by Matt Gurney..
A few facts:
- A disproportionate share of the deaths for the last 6 months have been suffered by unvaccinated people, We have all seen multiple exhausted doctors and nurses interviewed on TV attest to this. Government sources say the the same thing. True, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro and you, apparently, disagree.
- Most truckers are vaccinated and very few are not.
- Many protesters are not truckers but the truckers bring the equipment, which is the force of the argument. The logic is nowhere to be found
- Everyone is fed up with Covid but most of us believe that, on balance, Canada has done a reasonable job of dealing with a very difficult and evolving pandemic.
- The death rate per capita in the US is 3 times higher than in Canada. Why? The answer is because too many Americans, encouraged by people like yourself, espouse the same remedies as our Occupiers propose. Most Canadians understand this and this is why you do not have enough support to continue.
- The horrific, unexpected Omicron wave has begun to wane so measures taken to combat it are already being removed making many of the protesters demands moot.
- Enough said.
So a few facts back.
1. Yes, it is probably unwise for most unvaccinated people to chose to be unvaccinated. But, it is a fundamental human right for them to make that choice and well-established in Charter Section 7 precedence, which "includes the right to refuse medical treatment": https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
Notably, from A.C. v. Manitoba, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181: "Security of the person has an element of personal autonomy, protecting the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to decisions concerning their own body. It is part of the persona and dignity of the human being that he or she have the autonomy to decide what is best for his or her body. "
From Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307, at para. 49: “. . . ‘liberty’ is engaged where state compulsions or prohibitions affect important and fundamental life choices”
From Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, at para. 66: “[T]he right to liberty . . . protects within its ambit the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference”
From Rodriguez, Sopinka J. for the majority confirmed that the concept of security of the person encompasses “a notion of personal autonomy involving, at the very least, control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference and freedom from state-imposed psychological and emotional stress”
From R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, at p. 56 (per Dickson C.J.). "An order for treatment of an unwilling minor may also impinge on her “security of the person”, which protects a person’s interest in “bodily integrity”
2. Vaccination status is not the correct dividing line.
(a) Unvaccinated people with natural immunity from prior COVID-19 are as well-protected as vaccination from the pooled analysis of evidence: "While vaccinations are highly effective at protecting against infection and severe COVID-19 disease, our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations. ... Therefore, vaccination of COVID-recovered individuals should be subject to clinical equipoise and individual preference."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/
(b) Deaths are almost universally in older people. COVID-19. 61% of deaths have been over 80 years old, 82.2% over 70 years old, 92.8% over 60 years old, and 97.3% over 50 years old: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html
For people under 45 years of age, the risk of dying in a car accident is much higher. For those 0-19, they are 11-12 times more likely to die in a car accident than from COVID-19. See from comparing epidemiological results (link above) divided to annual basis compared to motor vehicle deaths (https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/statistics-data/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2019)
In 2019, there were 160 deaths for aged 0-19. Total since first death on January 25, 2020 from COVID there have been 29 deaths aged 0-19 to Feb 11, 2022, which works out to 14 people per year, or 11.4 times more people in the age range dying in car accidents. If the goals is to save these people, banning motor vehicles is a far better option than mandatory vaccination.
If the goals is to help with exhausted doctors then mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports is not the answer. You might make an argument for mandatory vaccination past 65, but you might do better mandating exercise and healthy eating passports.
The total number of deaths from COVID-19, from the above epidemiological data is 35,231 since Jan 25, 2020, or 17,192 per year. The number of total deaths in 2019 was 285,270 (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310070801) of which at least 9.3% was from obesity (if it hasn't grown since 2000): https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/healthy-living/obesity-canada/health-economic-implications.html
That is, obesity kills about 26,530 per year vs COVID-19 at 17,192 per year.
About 17% of deaths per year (in 2002) were from smoking, which in that year was 230,000 deaths or 39,100 per year, more than double from COVID-19. If that carries forward to 2019, it would be 48,496 or almost 3 times as many as from COVID-19.
I don't think you have prioritized correctly.
At no point have I said anything about hospital issues. My wife was an emergency nurse who suffered tremendously from chronically understaffed hospitals and still suffers the consequences. Your statement is completely unrelated to anything I said and is entirely uncalled for. And, you are presenting it dishonestly by trying to create "guilt by association" by picking out people you dislike and trying to associate me with them. That is dishonesty.
People who agree with me about offering vaccines to individuals for personal informed choice include the World Health Organization, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (from which the Government of Canada gets its vaccine advice), Health Canada via their risk management plan for the vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers via their monthly updated vaccine product monographs, all of the protesters, and 46% of Canadians, including 61% of 18-34 year olds:
https://globalnews.ca/news/8610727/ipsos-poll-trucker-convoy-support-ottawa-canada/
Yes, most truckers are vaccinated. As am I. As is my family. What have I said that in any way would contradict that? The issue here is fundamental human rights and the use of vaccine mandates and passports to create a class of "untouchables" and a two-tier society. There is no scientific basis for using vaccination status in this way.
Put another way, treating unvaccinated people as if they are a risk is like treating Muslims as if they are at risk of being a terrorists or black people are at risk of being criminals, and so limiting their movement based on that status.
You say, "Many protesters are not truckers but the truckers bring the equipment, which is the force of the argument. The logic is nowhere to be found". I can't find any coherence in that statement. What is it you are claiming, is it supposed to be disagreeing with something I said, and if so, then what?
"Everyone is fed up with Covid but most of us believe that, on balance, Canada has done a reasonable job of dealing with a very difficult and evolving pandemic."
Sure. Not too bad at first, and arguably up until about August 2021, and even tolerable until about October with the implementation of mandatory vaccinations and vaccine passports in direct contradiction to all of the scientific recommendations and human rights.
"The answer is because too many Americans, encouraged by people like yourself, espouse the same remedies as our Occupiers propose. "
I espouse vaccination. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. We're talking about mandatory vaccination and passports. Also, there is no basis for your claim about the U.S. It was far ahead of Canada long before there were any vaccines and the U.S. had a higher vaccination rate than Canada until July 3, 2021: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=USA~CAN
By way of comparison, Israel has been well above Canada almost the whole time in vaccination rate and yet have had many more cases and deaths. You are just arguing from incredulity. You know the answer you want and so are claiming that any bad outcomes are because of reasons that you disagree with.
But, as I say, this is not about whether vaccines are good or not, but where it is up to individual choice. Nothing you have said suggests otherwise.
"Most Canadians understand this and this is why you do not have enough support to continue."
If that is what Canadians understand, then they are misinformed and unscientific, as you are being. But, as I noted in the long list of organizations and people who support this, there is massive global, scientific, and even Canadian support for getting rid of these mandates.
"The horrific, unexpected Omicron wave has begun to wane so measures taken to combat it are already being removed making many of the protesters demands moot."
Great, then there is no reason for the political leaders to not sit down with the protesters and work out a deal for them both to be happy. Heck, the government could make the protestors look foolish (or moot) if that plan has existed. (Can you point me to a link for that plan?) Yet, the government is refusing to even talk to them or budge, keeps calling them childish names, increasing support for them, and making themselves look foolish. Heck, multiple Liberals are even coming out against Trudeau.
If such a plan exists, what is keeping them from ending this whole thing now? Spite? Is that a leadership quality?
"Enough said"
Apparently not. We are having an impass. I have repeatedly pointed to all of the scientific reports, policies, risk management plans, monographs, and recommendations that directly contract the current, all cited and quoted, all of them being the Canadian national scientific basis, and nobody has said what is wrong with any of them. All I get back are baseless, off-topic, uncited, non-sequitur claims that are just repeating what some politician or news anchor said.
How about reading some of it. It's all laid out in detail:
https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
https://adnausica.substack.com/p/the-vaccines-work-thats-a-problem
https://adnausica.substack.com/p/a-canadian-behavioral-study-of-obedience
Other than science, what other forms of authority could we follow? So the press conference today, the PM says his usual about the science. He could have substituted 'science' for 'history', and the overall meaning would remained the same: We are following the advice of those we trust.
Maybe we need more historians and philosophers on these advisory boards.
There is certainly a difference between "the science" and a person saying what the science says. The PM is making claims about what the science says but can't point to where he's getting it from, and what is available from his own government (Health Canada, NACI) and international health policy orgs (WHO, bioethics orgs) contradict him.
The issue seems to be that many people just have deeply held blind trust. I don't mean that they just believe what they are told. I'll generally believe it is likely true too. But, believing it is infallible and beyond question, and doesn't require showing the receipts are all problems.
There's a saying we had at NASA, "I'm God we trust; everybody else brings data." Many people seem to treat their leaders and press like a god in that respect.
This bad reasoning to me looks like a problem of tribal psychology; "My party/media/team tells me something is true, so I must believe it and defend it else I'll be a traitor to my tribe and help the enemy tribe win."
I think we need more psychologists, economists, and devils advocates, and generally embrace the disagreements and stop vilifying those that disagree. Diverse views and input are critical.
Is Dr. Tam a report? Is she hiding the meta analysis of studies and policy options in her pocket?
Dr. Tam is a person. Are you suggesting science is just the decree of an individual? That's literally the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Also, can you link to where she said mandatory vaccination and passports are the best option. I don't recall seeing her ever say that.
For actual data, the daily epidemiological data is here: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html
The monthly updated product monographs are here:
1. Comirnaty (updated Jam 20): https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
2. Spikevax (updated Dec 23): https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
3. AstraZeneca (updated Nov. 19): https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
4. J&J (updated Nov 23): https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
Pay attention to section 7 where they say effects on fertility, pregnancy, and breastfeeding are not yet established and risk to the infant cannot be ruled out.
Also note the risk mitigation plan based on informed consent from considering opposing risks, which is also central to the Health Canada risk mitigation plan for the vaccines, and the NACI recommendations for vaccines use, as I've written about and linked to in the articles below.
Also in there are the NACI recommendation differences between "should be offered to" and "may be offered to", and the Health Canada approvals based on overall risk-benefit overall that people can use it, not that everyone should or that every individual's cost-benefit says that they should take it.
Then there's the WHO and Nuffield Council on Bioethics statements and analysis in opposition to mandatory vaccination and passports. And even the WHO opposition policies to boosters and vaccinating children and adolescents.
I could go on and point out many of the contradicting journal articles, and the populations level data and Johns Hopkins, but this is why I put them in articles so that you can read it in one place and check the links yourself.
That's how science works, not by decree from an authority. I welcome links to reports or analyses showing the effectiveness of our policies in optimizing outcomes. If anyone has some.
For now, here are my summaries with links to sources:
https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
https://adnausica.substack.com/p/the-vaccines-work-thats-a-problem
https://adnausica.substack.com/p/a-canadian-behavioral-study-of-obedience
I’ve heard this idea that it’s too hard to move the trucks, and it’s mostly bravado. The first thing that happens is that the protestors are removed from the area. Then the trucks are removes, either by driving them away (seize keys, use locksmiths, etc), with tow trucks (a lot harder to intimidate the operators when the protesters aren’t around), with Army wreckers or armored recovery vehicles (they can tow a disabled Leopard 2 tank - they’ll do a semi easily), or defueled and disposed of with demolition equipment.
I'm not sure about the "too" part, but certainly the "hard" part is true. Even in your description, how long would that take? The story of it being hard isn't really coming from the protesters. I don't think CTV is trying to commit bravado: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/mobile/tow-truck-companies-rejecting-ottawa-police-request-for-help-source-1.5768436
They also estimate 250 trucks downtown. How long would that take? They mention 300 to 400 additional trucks that were ready to come in.
Again, it seems a futile game of 'whack-a-mole', especially given that the approach of actually negotiating works, as noted in the article, and what they are asking for is perfectly aligned with global health policy and what other jurisdictions are doing. There's a really easy option here, with a lot of scientific, public, and international support.
It would take days to remove all of the trucks, but they'd be removed. Making it clear that they're getting removed one way or another might shake loose some who don't want to end up in jail with their truck seized, damaged, or destroyed.
As for negotiation, probably not. It's a terrible precedent to give into any angry group that can blockade a city or transportation infrastructure. COVID restrictions were already set to be loosened before this protest took place, and the protesters have likely impeded that process. Of course, that kind of plays into their whole self-destructive schtick: being aggressively, stupidly opposed to vaccination when the evidence is clear that the vaccines are effective and safe. This is basically the equivalent of conducting a protest because the police won't let you sit in the middle of the street pounding your own crotch with a hammer as you scream "Freedom!!"
Well, you are ambitious. The estimate from the CBC recently is 418 trucks: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-police-update-convoy-february-8-protest-1.6343814
Let's just do the math on that. If it will take days, that implies less than a week. If they worked around the clock, 24 hours per day, that is removing 1 truck every 24 minutes. That's certainly possible with enough tow trucks, drivers, Army wreckers, or heavy lift helicopters, or whatever you envision, but that's ultimately the question of how many are willing and/or available. And, it would still have a big impact on traffic flow from downtown to wherever they tow them to, which has to be close enough to unload and return fast enough to maintain the 24 minute average.
Definitely difficult.
If restrictions were set to be removed, then that would be an easy solution for the government to use those as a means to get the drivers to leave. The implication then is the steadfast refusal of the government to even talk is just out of spite, which is a terrible precedent for government behaviour. They could both end it and make the truckers look foolish by pointing to the public plan that you are referring to. I can even send it to them if you can forward me the link to that public plan.
As for the precedent about an "angry mob", that alone is strange given the precedence of recent years in the U.S. of giving in to angry BLM and Antifa mobs, and Canada giving in to similar angry protesters.
But, what angry mob are you talking about here? I think you need to go watch hours of live streams from the protests. You might try Ottawalks, Zed, or Viva Frei. This is a love-in. People are hugging, dancing, and many saying they finally feel proud to be Canadian again. Francophone Quebecois and English Albertans hugging in unity. Immigrants comparing these mandates and the propaganda tactics used by the government and media to the tyrannies they left, and being proud to stand up for human rights.
I think the problem is that critics like yourself are picturing this entirely from your perspective and from what narratives you get from the corporate media. To understand what you are up against you have to go right to the source of the protesters and what they believe they are doing and why. That's why the live streams help.
If it helps to get you in the right frame of mind, imagine instead of COVID, this was another 9/11 but in Canada, and the government has put in place restrictions that Muslims couldn't travel, couldn't work, weren't allowed in certain places, and you had to get a card declaring your personal beliefs and denouncing Islam. Imagine the reason the government gives is that Muslims are dangerous, and are a threat to our kids, and point to the various groups and ISIS, etc. as proof that the "science" agrees.
Now imagine both Muslims and liberally amended people are outraged at this violation of human rights, and create a truckers movement to protest to remove these restrictions. And they do so peacefully, and hug in unity about caring for their fellow human beings.
Would you just call them an angry mob? Would you tell them to go home? Would you think this is just a matter of clearing them out? Or do you think they would continue the fight no matter what. Would you just give up, go home, and let your government continue to violate human rights like that?
I'm not saying you need to agree with them, or even the analogy. I'm just trying to help you to understand that the people you are criticising, and the importance to them on what they are doing, and why so many Canadians lined the highways in support and continue to support and give money. They see this as heroic and fundamental human rights. Whether it is freedom of religion or freedom of conscience and what medical procedure to take (protected by Section 7), it's what they believe.
Just as confusing being Muslim with being an Islamic terrorist is a fundamental error creating injustice and human rights violation, so to is confusing being unvaccinated with being COVID-positive. Those aren't even close to the same thing, yet people act like they are in the same way as Islamophobes treat Muslims as if they are extremists.
Again, the point isn't that you have yo agree with the analogy; the point is for you to think how would you feel IF it were the Muslim case, and realize that is the kind of feeling they and supporters have about this movement.
You don't even seem aware of what they are standing for. They aren't anti-vaccine. They are against vaccine mandates and passports, the same as the WHO, various bioethics orgs, and a heck of a lot of scientists and doctors.
As to simply taking Tue vaccines, it is also safe and effective to end Islamist extremism worldwide if everybody would just disavow Islam. Do you think we should mandate that? I don't. In fact, that would certainly end the Islamist extremism, but if everybody in Canada got vaccinated it wouldn't end COVID-19 or even come close.
And, by the way, even the vaccine manufacturers and Health Canada in the vaccine monographs and risk management plan don't claim they are safe. E.g., Section 7 of the monthly updated monographs still say it is unknown if they affect fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and can not eliminate risks to the infant.
The risk management plan and the NACI recommendations are based on uncoerced informed consent.
So, yes, the protestors are in agreement with the WHO, bioethics councils, NACI recommendations, and Health Canada's own risk management plan.
It's just that our politicians, press, and public who listen to them don't tend to bother to read them.
They just say the risk-benefit overall is sufficient to allow people to take them.
Edit: incidentally, many of them have removed their tires and some reportedly cut or disconnected their break lines. They've "burned the ships", metaphorically speaking.
Awesome. That's in the third last paragraph so you are onboard with most of it.
The point, which I thought was obvious (though I'll admit said sarcastically), is that the PM keeps claiming what the science says but (a) he has no science background, (b) he won't point to where it says what he claims. The science brain trust for federal COVID-19 is the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), and they don't recommend mandatory vaccination in any of their reports or statements that I can find. In fact, they directly contradict it in many cases, including recommending informed consent and that vaccines either "should be offered" in cases where the cost-benefit is good, and in other cases is "may be offered" which they define as other options being just as good.
I also can't find it anywhere on the Health Canada website or their reports. Quite the opposite, their risk mitigation plan is based on diversifying risk via informed consent of individuals, and highlight that there are risks even in the product monographs. Lots more information here: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/the-vaccines-work-thats-a-problem and here: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/a-canadian-behavioral-study-of-obedience
As far as "stick to the science", that is almost universally against mandatory vaccination. That's my point. As far as "follow the money", that sounds like when people say the mandatory vaccination, and lack of public data, and silencing of critics, and silencing of theraputics, is all about enriching "big pharma". Is that where you want me to follow the money?
(Edit: If you mean the support money via GoFundMe and GiveSendGo, there were 124,000 donators on GoFundMe, mostly in small donations, most with names. The biggest was $30,000 and those few in that range were from identified small businesses. If you have evidence of significant nefarious sources, let's see the data.)
As for credibility, that's why I put links to everything I claim. But, you are correct that I made a claim without putting the link. Here it is: https://www.narcity.com/what-did-justin-trudeau-teach-canadian-students-loved-him-in-the-classroom
My apologies.
Ah, an appeal to authority. He's a smart guy, a political authority, and other smart politicians think he's a smart politician, therefore he must be right. Is that the argument? That's not how reasoning or science work. That's just saying you trust what he says.
You say, "In terms of following the science he has always deferred to the health experts who work in Ottawa."
Really? Are you sure about that? I am an Ottawa scientist, and work with microbiologists, and I don't know of any of them who agree. Where can we find the reports of these "health experts who work in Ottawa" that conclude that mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports are the best way forward?
He always defers to them? In October 2021 after the election he put in the federal mandates on federal employees for vaccination, "Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police": https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32694
Given the existing Section 7 Charter right to decide for yourself what medical procedures to undergo, the legality of this mandate is based on a hierarchy of rights in which the right of your co-workers to be "safe" from an unvaccinated person supercedes the right of the unvaccinated person to make that choice for themselves. Specifically, it claims, "those working remotely and teleworking must be fully vaccinated to protect themselves, colleagues, and clients from COVID-19." The claim then and ongoing has been the believe that unvaccinated people are more likely to transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus to you than a vaccinated person.
Yet, at the same time, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) released their Advisory Committee Statement (ACS) on Oct. 22, 2021: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines.html
With respect to transmission, it states the following in the Summary: "There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2."
There is also a section entitled “Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission”. It notes the data is preliminary, that “current data is insufficient to draw conclusions”, and “Exploratory analyses for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection”.
In fact, this belief that a remote-working unvaccinated person is a higher risk to be around than a vaccinated person seems to have no basis in science anywhere, and is even ludicrous when you try to do the math.
The risk of transmission is the product of three components, the probability of being exposed, the probability of becoming infected given exposure, and the probability of transmission given infection.
For the first term, the science is clear. From Health Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/main-modes-transmission.html
"[T]he virus is most frequently transmitted when people are in close contact with others who are infected with the virus (either with or without symptoms). We also know that most transmission occurs indoors. Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were suspended in the air and that people inhaled the virus at distances beyond 2 metres. Such settings have included choir practice, fitness classes, and restaurants …"
These are all places that unvaccinated people aren't/weren't allowed, even in October 2021. Yet vaccinated people were allowed there in large numbers. Even I met with big groups in pubs with the order of 100 people in them. All of us could have been infected by the virus and wouldn't know it, because the vaccines work to keep us from being symptomatic: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/the-vaccines-work-thats-a-problem
Or, how about this from Health Canada, "Your vaccination status only changes your risk of getting COVID-19 and becoming sick. It doesn't change your risk of exposure to the virus out in the community."
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks.html
As noted in the scientific literature (linked to in the above link), we have no idea if the elimination of symptoms means that vaccinated people are more likely to spread it, not know they have it, and shed it without ever knowing, versus unvaccinated people who are far more likely to become symptomatic (which is why we take the vaccines in the first place).
The second and third terms are the ones that NACI said was too limited to make any conclusions. But if you look at the available literature even at the time, the third term, transmissibility, does not appear to be different between vaccinated and unvaccinated once infected. For the second term, infection, the NACI said "we don't know", which is fine. But if we look at the data at the time it suggested variations on the order of 0% to 70% depending on the vaccine and variant, and this was before Omicron.
So, a remote working unvaccinated person is probably the safest person to be around. You know they have limited exposure because they work remotely, and you know they aren't allowed where most of the transmission happens.
(continued next reply)
(continued from above)
Even if we ignore the other two terms, and take the worst case scenario for infection, for Pfizer it seemed to average around 50% to 70% reduction in infection (prior to Delta and Omicron). That means the relative risk calculation would show an unvaccinated person would be as risky to be around as 2 or 3 vaccinated people. Per the mandate, a remote worker required to come on site ad hoc (without accommodation at all) would be at worst equivalent to 2 or 3 vaccinated people.
None of this mandate stuff came from NACI or the "health experts who work in Ottawa", unless there is some secret report based on secret unpublished peer-reviewed publications. Where it did come from is the campaign trail. Notably, on Aug 31 in Sudbury, ON, he referred to the unvaccinated as "those people" and said "“And more than just being wrong, ‘cause everyone is entitled to their opinion, they are putting at risk their own kids, and they’re putting at risk our kids as well. That’s why we’ve been unequivocal. If you want to get on a plane or a train in the coming months, you’re going to have to be fully vaccinated. So families with their kids don’t have to worry that somebody is going to put them in danger in the seat next to them or across the aisle.
And we know that the way to get through this as well is to make sure that people can go into non-essential businesses and feel safe that they’re not going to catch COVID from someone next to them. And that means we’re going to work with provinces and territories who want to move forward on vaccination certifications, on vaccination passports, so that everyone can be safe. And what’s more, the federal government has announced that we’re going to pay for the development of those privileges that you get once you get vaccinated. Because everyone needs to get vaccinated and those people are putting us all at risk.”
https://youtu.be/v6Sx8Mw0CmA
Nothing here is scientific and none of it comes "health experts who work in Ottawa". It is demagoguery. He's trying to make you afraid of unvaccinated people, or he himself is irrationally afraid of them. Not only was all of his argument based on the belief that unvaccinated people are COVID-positive and highly contagious, and much riskier to be around than a vaccinated person, but he's claiming children are at risk from unvaccinated people.
Children 0-19 are 13 times more likely to die in car accidents by Statistics Canada's own data. His tour bus was a bigger risk to kids than unvaccinated people are.
To be clear on the math too, after 2 years only 7% of the population have had COVID-19. At roughly 100 weeks, that means at any given time, about 0.07% of the population have COVID-19 on average, or 1 in about 1500.
I say per week because that is about the longest a person can be contagious, so at worst case there is about a 1 in 1500 chance a person you are with may be currently contagious. Put another way, you need to be in the presence of about 1500 people to expect that at least 1 has COVID-19 and is contagious. To catch it you need to be in an enclosed airspace enough for it, and your vaccination status will mean that at least 95% of the time you are in this situation your antibodies will keep you from getting COVID-19.
Taking the worst case again, if vaccinated people are, in fact, ~50% less risk of transmitting to you, that's roughly 0.07% chance (unvaccinated) vs 0.035% chance (vaccinated), or 99.93% chance the unvaccinated person is harmless to you and 99.965% chance the vaccinated person is harmless to you, as far as transmission.
None of this was driven by science or "health experts who work in Ottawa". It is "us vs them" tribal psychology driving irrational fear.
It is contradicted by the WHO, NACI, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Health Canada. The federal microbiologists I talked to included quotes that the mandates were "draconian" and that we can all, vaccinated or unvaccinated, be a 'Typhoid Mary', and "We just don't know." All of these aren't just smart people, they are also smart people who know the science and are experts at it.
If you disagree and know of a specific scientific analysis or report recommending these mandates, please point them out. I once trusted the political and press representation until I actually started reading the actual science, including NACI, Health Canada, WHO, and journal articles.
It does not say what he says the science says. More importantly, it is the wrong question; the question isn't whether vaccines will solve all of our problems, but whether vaccine mandates and passports achieve those goals. The science is quite clear that the answer is no on that.
And, we haven't even gotten into the other harms. The goal is not to blindly just aim to minimize COVID-19, but to minimize overall harm including the damage of the mandates and lockdowns across domains including economics, mental health, learning, supplies, and child development. None of this is being done properly or scientifically.
LMAO, Butts is a very smart guy, I imagine he spotted Trudeau at McGill and thought this idiot could be useful.
Nothing in Trudeau pre-politics life or his record in parliament suggests he is smart. Quite the opposite. I could list examples all day... blackface, peoplekind, "Trudeau eulogies" (remember that), India trip, Tofino on his first National Reconciliation Day.... it's endless.
Add to that his public speaking. I mean, Good God, he sounds like a cross between William Shatner and a high school valedictorian!
There is no doubt that he is politically talented. The Liberals went from 3rd place to winning 184 seats in 2015. He was able to increase voter turnout among young people. Trudeau's policies are certainly far more progressive than what Chretien, Paul Martin would have implemented. I am concerned that once the pandemic ends, will the country be willing or able to begin repaying the debts that were incurred during the crisis ?
The pandemic has had severe economic consequences for those in the hospitality, tourism & arts. The civil servants & office workers have been able to save more money because they don't have to spend money on commuting to the offices etc
Would any future government try and rebalance the economic situation by imposing more taxes on the "laptop class" in order to rebuild the restaurant & tourism sectors ?
I am not sure why you are being so hostile? this should be a forum where people can discuss issues in a civil matter.
Coyne is full on conservative? I can see why you love the Liberal party so much, they legalized that good shit you love to smoke so much...
Coyne is HATED by Cons and Libs alike. And both are pretty adamant that he supports the other side.
This might be hard to fathom, but he might just not be a partisan. That's a good journalist if you ask me, something we need more of, not less.
Yes let’s follow the money of the Laurentian elites and see how China has bought them. Let’s see how Canada is being torn asunder by a movement set on creating a world where places like Canada cede their independence to totalitarian mad men.
No but they are the elites that rule Canada politically
Just subscribed. Your close coverage of the Ottawa siege convinced me this was worth paying for. As suspected, there's a hard core of foreign-funded and experienced insurrectionists surrounded by a protective moat of impressionable fools. This is a pivotal point in Canadian history; an essentially foreign populist authoritarian movement with ties to Trumpism and its allies are now occupying the nation's capital. Essential reporting ... keep up the good work.
What's the evidence of Trump involvement? Please share
I'm sure they're in a race to get that info to us in competition with the FDA releasing the data from the Pfizer trials. I'll leave a message for my grandkids to take a look at it after my kids grow up, have kids, and they grow to adults. Then we'll know for sure who these meddling kids were.
Not at all. I'm fully vaccinated, as is my family. They are pretty good under the circumstances, though I agree with the WHO so far that children don't need vaccination (mine are), and people who are not in high-risk categories should not get a booster. (The risk-benefit ratio for these isn't good, and it is more beneficial to get those doses to poorer countries who are still struggling to get first doses.)
I didn't realize that the British Medical Journal was "discredited scientists and RW crazies": https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102
Who would have known? And now the BMJ is apparently suing Facebook (or considering it) for their inaccurate "debunk": https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-british-medical-journal-story
Or, do you mean you've just decided what is true or not based on whatever your political tribe says is true or not? Anything that goes against your beliefs is "discredited", perhaps?
This place is getting trolled.
Yea I think he’s trying to promote his own sub stack!
How about Trudeau dropping the mandate? That's what started this and that's what the truckers want. No mandate!
Say Trudeau drops the mandate? So what? They still can't get across the border because of the US mandate! And maybe if they get arrested here and lose their truck or get themselves a criminal record, they won't be going back to the USA for a long time!
We need a government with enough wisdom to see that these mandstes are incredibly divisive and do not stop the spread of the virus. Its not about who wins. Its about what's best for the country.
As I was writing my response, Ad Nausica wrote a brilliant piece. But in order to have 'my say', here is what I am thinking:
I agree that the blockades need to end. However, I would just ask for a little creative thinking about solutions that build instead of destroy. I'm still shocked that a back channel to the Ottawa truckers has not been set-up to try and de-escalate the situation. And if clearing Windsor goes badly, I worry that more blockades could pop up leading to civil unrest across the country, if not the continent.
I also think people underestimate how challenging clearing the Ottawa blockade will be. There is a lot of support in Ottawa for the blockade from ordinary citizens, as is evidenced by the food and fuel that keeps pouring into the downtown core.
Reducing the rhetoric would go a long way to de-escalating the situation. A heavy-handed use of force will backfire in deepening the divisions in our social fabric and increasing the growing distrust of our institutions.
Mandates are not effective in getting those who distrust the government or big Pharma to get vaccinated. I think Stuart Parker nailed it in his piece https://stuartparker.ca/denormalization-from-failed-public-health-strategy-to-a-path-to-a-liberal-majority/
If what we really want is everyone who can get vaccinated to get vaccinated, we should change our strategy. If we want a scapegoat to carry the burden of this mismanaged crisis, we've already got one.
"and America can't tolerate a neighbour that can't keep its problems on their side of the border." I find it interesting that the US is so concerned about this northern crossing while they seem to have no interest in controlling what is happening along their southern border.
Wanna buy some Koolaid?? Got any specific details on "most" and how they figured that out??
Remember that the chief of the Toronto Police during the G20 fiasco is now our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada. How is that working out?
Cop out!
I believe separation of powers is in the Constitution not the Charter. Regardless, if someone is in charge of Emergency Preparedness for all of Canada, they should be looking at our borders and national capital.
Matt, you do real journalism. What we hear on the CBC, CTV, etc. is total crap.
The vaccine passports to enter restaurants or gyms made more sense when the science at the time indicated that vaccinated people were less likely to spread the Coronavirus. Omicron changed that theory & now it appears that everyone can spread the virus despite their vaccination status. Prior to the holidays, vaccinated Canadians were led to believe that gyms, restaurants etc would stay open for them even if there was a rise in cases, but the governments ended up shutting them down for everyone. Trudeau was opposed to mandatory vaccine mandates in 2020, but now strongly defends them. It appears that he is fighting the last war.
I don't know why Trudeau decided now was the time to implement the vaccine mandates for truckers now when there is less scientific justification for them now. Is it possible that he views truckers as a good political target since they are less likely to vote for him ?
I wonder if Trudeau would have forced a vaccine mandate on certain ethnic groups or any group that was more likely to vote for him ?
I am amused that the Quebec Premier Legault had to reverse his policy on vaccine mandates for health care workers because he realized the staff shortages would get worse & he would be blamed for the collapse of the health care system.
It seems to me that it a trucker has less physical contact with people than health care workers who are treating patients who are already sick with other diseases.
Thank you for your considered analysis. You've given all of us much food for thought; WRT your assessment of the response by all levels of government, I wholeheartedly concur. Not one of them has covered themselves in glory. I have particular disregard for the political hacks who have sought to make partisan hay before addressing the more pressing needs of the day.
Damn good reporting and insight!
Wish I'd read this before watching the OPSB question their chief & deputy chief (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8WiGUm-P7w). Would have had more sympathy for his remarks about "resources".
Thanks again Matt for chronicling this so well. You’re creating a book first draft for sure. Also helping me personally understand this better. 👏
Probably the best reporting on this mess I’ve seen. Where are the big news organizations. They are providing peripheral reporting at best. Well done.