All Canadians to be vaccined. Trudeau orders 40 million vaccines for 38 million

[franky1]

the fact that you can find it. while in other area's showing a lack of ability to find things. is proof that they are transparents.
after all if they did hide it. you would not know about it.

what you have to realise is that media people like the "reporter" in that statnews article write the article in a way to make it sound that she broke the news first. however she is just repeating a public announcement that the company themselves released before her article.

yep her works make it sound like she was on the inside of some private call, and she broke the news and then a statement was released. but if you done some more research you will work out the company halted the trial and then had conversations after.

EG if there was no public statement. there would be no share price impact and thus no need to have conversations about trying to gain investors trust by explaining why.

its simple logic and common sense, along with research

[LTU_btc]

Correct me if I wrong, but to get full immunity you have to be vaccined twice, second dose should be give 2 or 3 weeks after first one (can't remember exactly). So, 40 million vaccines doesn't mean that whole population of Canada will be vaccined. Though, as I understand, they will also will buy vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech, so probably there wil be more than 40 million doses. But from what I read, they never said that vaccine will be mandatory for everyone.
I'm not again vaccines, but I don't think it should be mandatory. But even if it will be not mandatory in most countries, people still will be forced somehow to get it. There will be no other choice if you don't want to have many restrictions which will make your life more complicated, such as not being able to travel abroad.

[bryant.coleman]

I am in favor of mass-vaccination, but I don't agree with such coercive steps. And as far as I could understand, the government can't prohibit anyone from retail stores if they don't have a vaccination pass. It is up to the shopkeepers to put up such restrictions. I really doubt whether any of them would do that, since it can have a negative impact on their business.

It might be worse for business to have an outbreak traced back to their shop.

That depends. If the shop maintains adequate security precautions, such as social distancing, wearing of masks and constant sanitization, then the chances are that there won't be any outbreak even if an infected person enters the shop. Anyway, 90%+ of the infected will be flagged at the entrance, if they use a contactless infrared thermometer at the entrance.

[tvbcof]

Correct me if I wrong, but to get full immunity you have to be vaccined twice, second dose should be give 2 or 3 weeks after first one (can't remember exactly)...

You're wrong.  The (not a) vaccine does not create 'immunity' at all.  You can still catch the viral infection and still pass it on to others.  When they did the 'efficacy tests' they defined 'work' to mean that it reduced symptoms of the disease.  Not that it created immunity to a pathogen.

This is not a 'vaccine' in any sense of the word as far as I can see.  At best it's a 'therapeutic'.  Trump was careful to use wording in case people called them out on the 'vaccine' marketing term.  Nobody did so they continue to refer to it as a vaccine.

[Mauser]

I read somewhere online that around 5% of the population are completely against vaccinations and won't get the corona vaccine. This sounds very promising because it only takes 60-70% to achieve the goal of herd immunity. But 40 million vaccines seem a big low in my opinion. I thought it takes two shots of vaccine to actually get immunity. So this would mean only half of the population could actually get it.

[franky1]

Trump was careful to use wording

now thats a first.
he is known for rambling

as for your other points. yes people will come into contact with the virus. and inhale it. have it on their hand/face. but if their body can fight the virus without causing any negative effects internally then its deemed as immune.
if they are immune but the virus can pass onto others. its deemed as the person being a 'carrier'

so yes if the vaccine can make it so people dont get sick then the vaccine works. its the whole point.
put it this way if your lungs are not infected(replicating the virus) but your hands are covered in virus due to you touching things and then you pass it on via your hand. this does not mean the vaccine has failed due to carrier transmission still being possible.
it just means you should wash your hands

you will see the lung related symptoms/cases decrease. and at very worse the cases where the symptoms are diarrhoea as thats a sign they were infected by eating food that was touched by a sick person. (or continuously swallowing mucus if diarrhoea starts after the lung based symptoms)
EG air goes in the lungs not the belly.. contaminated food goes in the digestive system not the lungs

so the small % of cases that are diarrhoea based symptoms, could remain due to 'carrier' transmission due to bad hygiene.

as for the whole "asymptomatic" group of this year being presented as 50% where by there is a risk of transmission. this number has been mis-represented
the 50% is more like
30% -pre-symptomatic (tested and questioned about symptoms before its truly incubated) (transmittable)
10% -minor symptoms(they are infected/incubating but with low symptom its not noticable) (transmittable)
7% - they eat it(swallowing contaminated food causes digestional issues but does not get in lung)
3% - true full course assymptomatic(immune)

thats the confusing part people dont get. not having symptoms being broadly classed as asymptomatic. even when a majority of those will get symptoms just in varying amounts at a later time.

the aim of the vaccine is to instead of just the 10%(3%-7%) and 10% minor symptoms. to instead be 100% where the symptoms are minor immune reaction symptoms not the covid symptoms(lung damage)

[squatz1]

I am in favor of mass-vaccination, but I don't agree with such coercive steps. And as far as I could understand, the government can't prohibit anyone from retail stores if they don't have a vaccination pass. It is up to the shopkeepers to put up such restrictions. I really doubt whether any of them would do that, since it can have a negative impact on their business.

It might be worse for business to have an outbreak traced back to their shop.

Especially with no liability protection from Congress — this is something that is unchartered territories that could be used to really screw some businesses if personal injury lawyers start to fight bring up litigation against places.

May not do a ton of damage to places like McDonlalds, and other huge corporate franchises  — though it could cause a large deal of pain to the local pizza place.

So yeah, vaccines make it a lot easier to open places up.

[bryant.coleman]

I read somewhere online that around 5% of the population are completely against vaccinations and won't get the corona vaccine. This sounds very promising because it only takes 60-70% to achieve the goal of herd immunity. But 40 million vaccines seem a big low in my opinion. I thought it takes two shots of vaccine to actually get immunity. So this would mean only half of the population could actually get it.

The mass manufacturing of the vaccine is progressing at a very slow pace and none of the countries have reported more than one million vaccinations till now. Even Russia, which promised to vaccinate 2 million people by the end of December has missed that mark by a long distance. There are multiple risks here. First of all, the vaccine is not that easy to manufacture. And secondly, the storage and transportation is very difficult, as it needs ultra-deep freezing. And finally, many of the countries haven't yet came up with the list of priority individuals, who needs to be vaccinated first.

[tvbcof]

I read somewhere online that around 5% of the population are completely against vaccinations and won't get the corona vaccine. This sounds very promising because it only takes 60-70% to achieve the goal of herd immunity. But 40 million vaccines seem a big low in my opinion. I thought it takes two shots of vaccine to actually get immunity. So this would mean only half of the population could actually get it.

The so-called 'vaccine' (Moderna', Pfizer's, etc) don't confer 'immunity' no matter how many shots you get.  You still catch the virus, it still replicates within you, and you still pass it on to others just like always.

The trials simply found that people who took the shot had a decrease in the effects of being sick (during a window which excluded most near-term side effects from the injection itself.)  The study was designed such that this would constitute 'success' and 'efficacy'.

You are supposed to ASSUME that the shot gives you 'immunity' (and thus reduces the spread through the population) but that's not what the science says, and it's not what the corp/gov 'scientists' say if you listen carefully.  The mainstream media will say that straight up, but legally they are defined as 'entertainment' and are, under law, not obligated to state factually accurate information.  Furthermore, if there is a military or national security element to this operation they are not only protected from flatly lying to the audience but they might even be compelled to do so.

[franky1]

here is the real funny thing

tvbcof thinks there is no virus. so why is he suddenly worried about immunity from something he thinks doesnt exist.

the joke on him is that what he writes is not actually his independent mind thoughts. he is just rehashing stupid opinion stuff from conspiracy sites without taking the time to think about what he is typing.

he has totally debunked his earlier rhetoric by even suggesting that people can get a virus and can spread it even with a vaccine. because now he admits there is a virus.

you gotta love it when they debunk themselves.

come on tvbcof. how can you say the vaccine decreases the symptoms. while also thinking no one has ever had symptoms in the first place

[tvbcof]

here is the real funny thing

tvbcof thinks there is no virus. so why is he suddenly worried about immunity from something he thinks doesnt exist.

Nope.  Never believed that to be true and never said that it was true.

I've said many times that I figure one of the two is likely to be true:

 - What is being called 'SARS-cov-2' is the natural coronavirus strain that happened to be circulating this year.

 - 'SARS-cov-2' has some designer elements to it's genome, but they are not of the type that makes people especially ill or dead.  It would instead give the infection different properties which would be useful for the operation.  Things like transmissible, latency considerations, etc.

the joke on him is that what he writes is not actually his independent mind thoughts. he is just rehashing stupid opinion stuff from conspiracy sites without taking the time to think about what he is typing.

he has totally debunked his earlier rhetoric by even suggesting that people can get a virus and can spread it even with a vaccine. because now he admits there is a virus.

you gotta love it when they debunk themselves.

come on tvbcof. how can you say the vaccine decreases the symptoms. while also thinking no one has ever had symptoms in the first place

What happens when you invent a non-true 'fact' upon which to base a premise then the premise makes no sense.

[Mauser]

The mass manufacturing of the vaccine is progressing at a very slow pace and none of the countries have reported more than one million vaccinations till now. Even Russia, which promised to vaccinate 2 million people by the end of December has missed that mark by a long distance. There are multiple risks here. First of all, the vaccine is not that easy to manufacture. And secondly, the storage and transportation is very difficult, as it needs ultra-deep freezing. And finally, many of the countries haven't yet came up with the list of priority individuals, who needs to be vaccinated first.

You are right, there are a lot of issues to mass produce the vaccine. I think especially the Pfizer/biontech vaccine is very difficult to handle. Due to the low temperature required there is a need for some changes in the production facilities. But the moderna vaccine seems to be cheaper in production, and can be stored in a normal freezer. Which would make transportation much easier.

[OgNasty]

Oh the joys of universal health care...  No thanks. 

[franky1]

Oh the joys of universal health care...  No thanks.  

oh the joys of corporate health care.. asking for your payment plan before asking whats wrong. no thanks

can i just ask what 'benefits' do you think you get for having a corporate healthcare system. im actually interested in your opinion

but before you answer. consider that health insurance limits which hospital or available treatments a insurance will cover. so dont mention the 'freedom of choice'
the amount of tax that goes to healthcare vs the amount of insurance premium means that insurance is more expensive so dont mention the costs
the fact that it requires consulting an insurance plan to agree to treatment rather than looking at the patient and just treating them. means dont mention the belief of freedom of treatment.
oh and if you have to think about the cos of calling for an ambulance or worry about it costing you later. rather than just calling for one. whereby people in poorer suburbs dont even see ambulances.. dont mention how it 'cares' for all no matter what'

so tell me whats left that you find as the benefit of corporate healthcare

[Cnut237]

I rather have covid than get the vax.

I don't understand this opposition to vaccination.

Perhaps there is an argument that this one has been developed too quickly and has not been tested sufficiently... but as there is such high demand and nations are only getting small quantities at a time, it's generally the oldest people and frontline health workers who are getting the vaccine first anyway, so unless you're in one of these categories, there are plenty of guinea pigs ahead of you in the queue to ensure safety.

'Too quick and not tested sufficiently' is the only reasonable argument. Any argument against vaccination in general doesn't make sense. How can anyone look at smallpox, or polio, and want them back, and deny that vaccination is what eradicated them?

[BADecker]

Maybe, just maybe, the vaccine won't hurt Canadians. After all, if you are tough enough to withstand the cold, Canadian winters, maybe you can withstand the vaccine like the Swiss can't. But who needs a vaddine when 99.9% of the people have withstood Covid? Of course, Big Pharma people need money to eat, too.


Swiss Patient Dies Shortly After Receiving Pfizer COVID Vaccine

...though whether his death had anything to do with the inoculation hasn't yet been determined. [lol]

The canton has yet to release any additional details about the exact amount of time that passed between the inoculation and the man's death.

Lucerne was the site of the first vaccinations in Switzerland beginning last week, with a shot from Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech given primarily to elderly people. Switzerland has received 107K vaccine doses, so far, and expects to get 250K per month starting next year.

"We are aware of the case," a spokesperson said, before adding that the death had been referred to Swiss drugs regulator Swissmedic. Swissmedic didn't comment further.

Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine is the only vaccine approved, so far, in Switzerland. The EU has just started approving the jabs on an emergency-use basis, with the first injections starting earlier this week.

[squatz1]

I rather have covid than get the vax.

I don't understand this opposition to vaccination.

Perhaps there is an argument that this one has been developed too quickly and has not been tested sufficiently... but as there is such high demand and nations are only getting small quantities at a time, it's generally the oldest people and frontline health workers who are getting the vaccine first anyway, so unless you're in one of these categories, there are plenty of guinea pigs ahead of you in the queue to ensure safety.

'Too quick and not tested sufficiently' is the only reasonable argument. Any argument against vaccination in general doesn't make sense. How can anyone look at smallpox, or polio, and want them back, and deny that vaccination is what eradicated them?

It’s fair to not want to be one of the first in line for the vaccine, I understand that. Though it’s not fair to be blasting the merits of a vaccine and saying that this is all one big conspiracy from the government to force you to do things like sheep. 40,000 people have already been tested for the (I think) Pfizer vaccine and there wasn’t any side effects to it.

I stress again that I understand not wanting to be first in line. Though spreading baseless conspiracy theories about it is not going to do anything for anyone. If you don’t want to take the vaccine, just continue to social distance, wear your mask, and continue following the guidelines to ensure that the mass spread stops.

[BADecker]

^^^ Blasting the merits of the vaccines isn't near strong enough. The vaccines are downright dangerous. Wy stop somebody who wants to warn people to be careful? People are dome enough already. We can tell, because they believe in the virus because the governor and their doctor told them. Such misplaced, blind faith and trust. Why not get proof, and learn how to view proof, so that they know when they are looking at proof, or when they are being tricked?

[OgNasty]

can i just ask what 'benefits' do you think you get for having a corporate healthcare system. im actually interested in your opinion

Lower income taxes. Less dependency on government. Access to faster and higher quality services.

Since I know you’ll dispute my third point, read it again and then read this article: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/07/15/american-health-care-treats-canadians-who-cannot-wait/

“The Canadian system consistently ranks low or lowest across numerous metrics in the Commonwealth Fund’s extensive survey on health care. With regards to specialists and surgeries, the United States ranked best or nearly best.”

“After being advised that they need a procedure done, only about 35% of Canadians had their surgery within a month, whereas in the United States, 61% did.”

[franky1]

can i just ask what 'benefits' do you think you get for having a corporate healthcare system. im actually interested in your opinion

Lower income taxes. Less dependency on government. Access to faster and higher quality services.

Since I know you’ll dispute my third point, read it again and then read this article: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/07/15/american-health-care-treats-canadians-who-cannot-wait/

maybe instead of quoting some media site. you should quote the terms and conditions of your medical insurance policy.

yep the limitations and barred procedures list will make you think twice.
UK/canada doesnt have barred procedures
UK/canada doesnt make you have to choose between paying rent or medical co-pays
UK/canada doesnt make you have to choose between saving up for your kids college or having surgury
when you realise paying your monthly premium is actually a tax on your health. you soon learn your 'right to life' is in the hands of corporations

gotta love the long list of exceptions corporate healthcare have.

US has the highest amount of medical debt compared to any other country
UK/canada has no medical debt. no bill comes though their letter box

oh.. and that article..
very funny
pretending people wait months or appendix removals.. HA HA HA
if someone had appendicitis they would be taken straight to hospital and treated that day.
its not something doctors wait around for
but it was a funny read. seems they should have done research.

..
anyway.. out of curiosity
look at how much medical insurance you pay per month
look at how much income tax you pay.
then work out if all hospitals/doctors stayed the same but the bill went to the government and no longer your liability. how much income tax increase you think it will be
remember corporate insurances make profit. so think about the 'at cost' value you would pay/not pay
then think about the lack of 'exceptions' there would be and no having to remember which hospital to request to go to if unconscious to ensure your in coverage.