Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-government-mandatory-vaccinations-1.6140131

by miles • 5 years ago

130 136 5 years ago

f6v2• 5 years ago

Germany is now giving the dozes away as there's low demand. I wonder if the same rules will be in place in Europe.

Who is actually paying for all of this? America is giving away doses, but for some reason I can’t fathom the drug companies doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

If there’s all this money laying around for COVID doses, ad everybody gets a shot no questions asked, maybe they could put that same energy behind insulin!

nradov2• 5 years ago

The US federal government is purchasing doses from drug companies at pre-negotiated prices and then giving them away to foreign countries.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...

cdot2• 5 years ago

Theyre printing money to pay for everything which is causing massive inflation.

rsynnott4• 5 years ago

Both the US and particularly the EU over-bought. In particular, the EU increased Pfizer/Biontech orders after the AZ delays became apparent, but the committed AZ is still arriving (just late) and is now largely useless.

f6v2• 5 years ago

The federal government seems to be paying the bill in Germany.

Bayart• 5 years ago

We've got a vaccine passport in France and it boosted vaccination substantially. Italy is the same, AFAIK.

The doses were always "free". Testing used to be as well, now it's 15€ I think.

MichaelZuo• 5 years ago

It’s surprising since an 81% vaccination rate is already near the top of forecasts. Will a 90% or 95% rate make that much of a difference to justify forcing people to do so?

oblio• 5 years ago

81% for adults.

jeromegv2• 5 years ago

It's actually 63% of the full population that is double-vaccinated in Canada. Yes some of those are not eligible (kids), but still a big amount of people are eligible and not taking it.

https://twitter.com/redouad/status/1426486746058006531

maxerickson• 5 years ago

People are being forced to forgo transportation, they are not being forcibly vaccinated.

totony4• 5 years ago

/s ?

asdfasgasdgasdg2• 5 years ago

Yes, it should make a difference. We get measles outbreaks in the US in areas with much higher compliance rates than 81%. And that's without counting all the people who are not eligible yet.

bonzini2• 5 years ago

Measles is insanely transmissible though, twice as much as Delta and four-five times as much as the original Wuhan wild type.

On the other hand it doesn't mutate much and the vaccine has a greater efficiency.

whatever_dude2• 5 years ago

That's general population, not traveling population. A traveler can be a vector of infection in more ways than someone who stays local.

HarryHirsch2• 5 years ago

It's been established that vaccinated people can get Covid and that they can infect others. Just yesterday - an outbreak on a cruise ship: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/galvesto...

This is a pointless exercise, people must get vaccinated to reduce the load on the healthcare system, but widespread vaccination on its own won't make enclosed spaces safe.

jeromegv2• 5 years ago

Just stop twisting the truth. Yes vaccinated people can get covid, but at a much lower rate, and when they do, they spread it less. In fact in Ontario (largest province in Canada), you are 30x more likely to get COVID if you are unvaccinated (and 50x more likely to get in the ICU).

Source https://twitter.com/EdTubb/status/1426182876383612931

and

https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ont...

And everyone vaccinated that got COVID on that cruise had low or no symptoms, which is a pretty good outcome if you compare to all those unvaccinated people in hospitals in Florida right now.

sleavey8• 5 years ago

I'm not an expert in this field but I am a scientist and have been looking at the various data released on this point, because it's foundational to the reasoning behind the push for universal vaccination using unapproved drugs. I think that which you say is being twisted, the "truth", doesn't yet exist on this topic. We simply don't have scientific consensus yet on whether the current vaccines are fully neutralising. Lots of conflicting data for experts to untangle. I would not start calling people truth twisters until we know more. As an example of scientific studies with opposite conclusions to those you linked, see e.g. the links in the fourth paragraph here [1]. The fifth paragraph also provides a hypothesis as to why the vaccines aren't fully neutralising.

[1] https://www.hartgroup.org/vaccination-prevents-transmission-...

HarryHirsch2• 5 years ago

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the picture all the anecdotes paint. Closer to home, a colleague reports that her sister-in-law brought Covid home from a conference and then have it to her husband. Both were vaccinated (Pfizer/J&J).

Yes, being vaccinated keeps out out of hospital and out of a coffin, that's enough reason to get the shot. But it doesn't prevent synptomatic infection as well as we've been told (latest numbers indicate 50 % efficacy against Delta), and there's still the risk of long Covid (~ 20 %). The older you are and the longer ago yhour shot was the greater the risk.

We need to limit large gatherings again and increase ventilation. I work at a university and am frankly sick of being asked to take risks to my health while others can hide out until there's the Delta/Lambda booster, all in the name of propping up the value of commercial real estate.

peytn• 5 years ago

The data shows you are 30x more likely to receive a positive COVID test result if you are unvaccinated, not that you are 30x more likely to “get COVID.” You need to give the distribution of tests between vaccinated/unvaccinated to draw the latter conclusion.

smallerfish• 5 years ago

Behavior should be factored into those numbers - unvaccinated people are less likely to believe covid is serious (on average) ergo are more likely to be putting themselves in risky situations and/or less likely to wear masks. Studies are all over the place on vaccine effectiveness - clearly much better than zero, but not a reason to be complacent.

sho2• 5 years ago

I don't understand this attitude. Yes vaccines aren't 100% perfct but they are a whole lot better than nothing. Same as masks.

It's not "pointless" at all, it's a government taking totally reasonable measures to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. Nothing is ever going to be 100% safe, but to not take obvious measures to increase safety is negligent.

I just have no sympathy for the anti-vaccine crowd and their wilful ignorance and bad faith arguments. Fine, it's your right to not get vaccinated. It's everyone else's right to prevent your recalcitrant ass from affecting others with your ridiculous theories and bad decision-making.

ghiculescu2• 5 years ago

I think it was a reasonable question, which I read as:

If I am vaccinated, and you are not, what do I gain from forcing you to get vaccinated? I am equally highly protected either way, right?

mensetmanusman2• 5 years ago

Having survived Covid is better than some vaccines; forcing people to then pay Pharma companies is kind of a funny response, especially when there are still many people in the world that are under lockdown that want vaccines, you can easily argue it is not ethical.

ghoward• 5 years ago

I don't understand this attitude. Yes vaccines aren't 100% perfct but they are a whole lot better than nothing. Same as masks.

This is only true for both if there are no side effects to doing either of them. If there are side effects, and there are, then it is not that simple.

I don't know why, but with COVID, people seem to have conveniently forgotten that in science, all factors matter. [1]

[1] https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...

mabbo• 5 years ago

It's likely because of the election.

Trudeau is calling for an election in the next few weeks. By announcing this now, he dares the opposition to say it's the wrong move, so that he can say he's protecting Canadians and the conservatives won't. Keep me in charge to stay safe. Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice.

And if the opposition says it's the right move, he can say "even the conservatives agree with my decision, clearly I'm doing the right things".

Edit: and to be clear, I think it's the right move regardless.

totony4• 5 years ago

At least in quebec vaccine passports are seen in a super bad light (at least to most people i have interacted with). But yeah it's for sure an election tactic, hiding more important discussion like how they threw away their promise to reform the electoral system (EDIT: Probably because it makes them lose [1])

[1] https://theconversation.com/what-the-canadian-election-resul...

ckdarby3• 5 years ago

Complete opposite interactions for vaccine passports and I live in Saint-Remi, Quebec.

graeme2• 5 years ago

Do you hang out in an antivax crowd?

Vaccine passport are enormously popular in Canada.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/majority-support-vacc...

I couldn’t find Quebec specific data, but I live here and haven’t seen anything to suggest people view them differently.

koolba• 5 years ago

Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice.

What does “opposed to vaccines” even mean? Vaccines for anybody? Vaccines for themselves? Mandatory vaccines?

I sincerely doubt 10% of even Canada is in favor of mandating everyone be vaccinated to live what was once a normal life.

EDIT: I meant that last sentence in reverse, ie doubt that only 10% is against mandatory vaccinations. I’d wager it’s much higher.

ghaff12• 5 years ago

Even in the US, I think you'd find there was significantly greater than 10% support for vaccine mandates for certain activities, jobs, etc.

ls65536• 5 years ago

Exactly this. I keep seeing so much discussion lately where support for vaccination in general (or for oneself) is being conflated with support for mandatory vaccination (for everyone). These are not the same thing! This all-or-nothing "with us or against us" discourse is really not helpful, and it often serves to shut down any healthy debate about the merits (or drawbacks) of two related but still separate items.

And this kind of extreme binary categorization seems to be everywhere lately...

- Against some policies of some country's authoritarian regime? You're a racist!

- Vote for team blue (red)? You must despise everyone who votes for team red (blue)!

- For bike lanes? You're anti-car!

- Pro-carbon tax? You hate the economy!

- Concerned about men's issues? You must hate women!

It's almost as if holding any nuanced view and ability to debate about the many complex situations we face in life means you're more than likely to find yourself despised by those in either of the extreme camps on any given issue, which unfortunately seem to be growing to include more and more people as time goes on. As this unfolds, we're less likely to be able and willing to find compromises, have empathy for, and better understand one another. How are we going to come together to work on solving some very hard problems of the future when we're all just shouting past each other, thinking that anyone who doesn't hold the exact same set of viewpoints as one does on so many varied issues is an idiot?

wyck• 5 years ago

40% of the Canadian population is unvaccinated, approximately 15 million people.

ckdarby3• 5 years ago

71.744% of the Canadian population has received at least one dose

82.404% of Canadians 12+ have received at least one dose

Source: https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html

gdulli• 5 years ago

82% of the age-eligible population is either fully vaccinated or has started the process with the first shot.

barbazoo• 5 years ago

You're probably right. There's also a push to make the vaccine mandatory for federal and healthcare workers. Somehow it rubs me the wrong way for a not fully approved vaccine to be made mandatory though. Don't get me wrong, I'm doubly vaccinated and I believe everyone should be. But should we force people? In a country where 82%/72% (1) of eligible people are already vaccinated once/twice?

(1) https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html

gdilla• 5 years ago

Except they're not going to be forced? You don't have a right to be employed. You may be able to wfh or find a job that will allow that. But being required to be vaxxed to go to the office seems reasonable to provide a safe work place.

azth2• 5 years ago

Does this include international travelers? Is it legal to prevent someone from going back to their country if they are not vaccinated? What about incoming passengers? Are they going to have ties with all incoming airlines to check vaccination status?

fortran77• 5 years ago

Is it legal to prevent someone from going back to their country if they are not vaccinated?

I think that all depends on the country. I'd imagine it would be some variation of requiring a test and a quarantine.

ghaff12• 5 years ago

Legal is what the government of a given country says is legal. My understanding is that New Zealand for example allows returning travelers but they have to stay in designated quarantine hotels and those are basically unavailable.

azth2• 5 years ago

I meant the scenario where a Canadian resident but non-citizen wants to return to his country, but he's not vaccinated. Is the Canadian government going to prevent him from boarding a plane?

account422• 5 years ago

Legal is what the government of a given country says is legal.

Governments are generally restricted by a constitution.

amarshall• 5 years ago

Preventing someone from leaving and preventing someone from leaving by commercial airline or train is not the same thing. The U.S. does a similar thing where they might instruct airlines to prevent boarding at a foreign airport as that’s not a U.S. border and a citizen only has the irrevocable right to re-enter at an actual border.

Ultimately, legal is whatever the laws of the country you’re in say plus whatever aid your embassy is able to coax out of them.

That said, I don’t have answers to your specific questions about these rules.

bernardv• 5 years ago

Great news. Vaccination requirements are nothing new - I’ve had a WHO issued vaccination passport since the ‘70s.

totony4• 5 years ago

Weren't vaccine passport only if you want to enter a country you're not a resident of? Countries have their sovereignty, they can bar you entry for any reason.

mandmandam2• 5 years ago

Here are some reasons I think this is a very bad idea:

1. The risk/benefit analysis for people under 40 is not as clear as is claimed. "Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds" [0]. That's just clots; not myocarditis, or pericarditis, GBS, CFS, lingering numbness, Bell's palsy, missing periods, and more. Yes, there are some young people who have died with Corona - the vast majority of them had comorbidities.

2. This goes against human rights. Many civil liberties and privacy groups are against "vaccine passports", including the WHO special envoy on COVID-19. If you're response to that is "well I had to take a shot to go to France", well, that's not quite the same as using a train, or keeping your job and career.

3. "But the herd immunity" - No. Herd immunity is not realistically possible with these leaky vaccines. That's even ignoring animal reservoirs and variants; such as could come from deer, mice, rats, cats, dogs, ferrets, mink, monkeys etc - all of which have been shown to be capable of catching Corona and spreading it among themselves.

4. In the past hundred years there are countless examples of governments and pharmaceutical companies performing horrific acts, and covering them up. This goes double for the poor and minorities. Can you really blame native people in Canada for distrusting government?

5. The same mistrust can be understandably applied to the mainstream media who sell us more war, anxiety, fear and distrust every year. Mandating, or "soft" mandating vaccines will mostly achieve riots. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that politicians are heavily invested in tear-gas and riot gear manufacturers.

6. These vaccines are for-profit, yet were provided on condition of full legal indemnity. How can it inspire confidence in people to claim a vaccine is so safe that it can be mandated, while at the same time saying that absolutely no responsibility for any symptom or side-effect whatsoever will be taken by the manufacturers? Pick one! These companies have already made tens of billions of dollars, using research that has taxpayer money behind it on multiple levels.

7. These vaccines are not traditional vaccines. Yes, they have been studied for many years, but also, there is no long term data. The side effects which we know of are poorly understood, i.e., GBS and CFS.

8. Many governments seem to be more interested in bringing in "vaccine passports", and "soft" mandatory vaccinations than actually hiring / training more nurses & building more ICU units. Making good use of subsidised antigen tests, or implementing effective, privacy sensitive contact tracing, seem even lower on the agenda. I don't know how many ICU beds or nurses Canada has hired, or how they are testing, but I suspect there are the same shortcomings there as elsewhere. That's not just bad policy, and bad health management, it's eyebrow raising.

9. Better vaccines - by all accounts, ie Novavax - are on the horizon. Cures and treatments could be coming too. Burning people's career for standing up for their right to determine what concoction is shot directly into their blood right now seems short sighted at best.

[0] https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html *

* Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...

ithkuil• 5 years ago

I'm also personally very unhappy about mandatory vaccination or excessive pressure, but from a different angle: I'm worried that by doing so governments are basically fueling a resistance whose root cause is based on basic sacrosanct human principles such as freedom, dignity, independence, etc, but if human psychology is such that if you're making a stand you also have to provide additional reasons, just to prove that you're still rational.

I don't think many people (if any) would publicly state "I know that vaccines are technically the most rational thing we could do given the information we have, but I'm still not going to accept them because the government is patronizing me, so screw them, I'm going to go against my interest just to stand for my rights". Most people will try to sound more reasonable than that and add that perhaps it's a bad idea in the first place, etc etc

* Note that Moderna and Pfizer have similar clot profiles to AZ: https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1...

From the linked article:

"Crucially, the study authors found that people who had been infected with COVID-19 developed blood clots at a far higher rate than those who had received either of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines."

From what I understood, the main question is: do you believe that you can avoid catching covid indefinitely.

If you really believe that you can indefinitely do extensive testing, contact tracing, social distancing, remote working (and so your partner and family) then perhaps, the probability of a vaccine complication outweighs the probability of getting covid multiplied by the probability of having some serious consequences of covid.

On the other hand, if you believe that sooner or later covid will just burn through the population, then you have to assume that you'll get it, and whatever are the problems caused by vaccines they have to be compared with covid itself.

And the comparison has to be fair!

Sure most young healthy people go through covid without serious issues. Most such people also get through vaccines without clots. The ones who do have clots induced by vaccines are more likely to have had bigger problems had they caught covid. In other words vaccines are working as intended. It's not my words; it's from the article you cited!

A few years ago I was beginning to believe in the reasonableness of the argument that most vaccines we give to our kids may be no longer necessary. The argument seemed compelling: those diseases right now seem gone and the amount of vaccine induced problems surpass the disease itself (at least until it came back).

However, I expected this logic go change once you have an actual epidemic burning through the population. Instead the same people just changed the spiel, finding new and new arguments, sowing doubt for the sake of it.

Many have lost trust in institutions because of their past misdeeds. In the same vein I also lost trust in the anti-vax rhetoric.

I think we can avoid to be trapped in a binary mindset. It's not just "with us or against us.". You can have a healthy distrust of authorities and still also recognize that there are millions of highly educated medical professionals in the world that understand the tradeoffs and are a support base for the scientific consensus that is guiding the government policies.

Yes, government will execute thinks badly again and again in many things; in particular I think it's most likely that governments will handle badly the human aspect: their inability to understand where dissent comes from and how to effectively address is quintessential politics.

But assuming that you have a smoking gun that proves that vaccines are dangerous in a pre-print study that shows how blood clots also happen in vaccinated people is just fueling FUD in this deeply asymmetric information war we're living through.

I'm personally convinced that if there was overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous no amount of government intervention, or big pharma mafia, can effectively silence that. We're not even talking about one single government? If there was a hidden truth some weak link would have snapped already.

If you have better evidence I'm all ears. But please something solid.

mandmandam2• 5 years ago

First off, being "patronized" is not the same thing as having an experimental vaccine shot directly into your muscle against your will, lest you lose the right to travel or keep your job.

Second, wrt the mortality rates, you're missing the time variable; as are the researchers in the study which compares AZ to Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines. Yes, if everyone caught Corona in a six month period, the mortality rate comparison would skew toward vaccines being better - but that's not the case; and there are signs that the mRNA vaccine's effectiveness "seems to "drop off a cliff" after six months.

The first study I cited factored that time variable in; to measure the mortality risk in a large population (France) over a period of time.

And importantly, I didn't claim either link as a holy grail. I said may; to show that there is room for doubt. Because there is. If there wasn't, then the vaccine companies wouldn't need full legal indemnity, would they?

Remember when there was no doubt whatsoever that the virus came from nature, and definitely not the novel coronavirus lab a few miles from the initial outbreak, where they'd been putting corona into humanised mice, and failing safety standards? I remember. I remember the memes mocking it in the name of science, and the censorship of any doctor or journalist who dared try to question that narrative.

You talk a lot about trusting doctors and institutions, and not trusting the dirty anti-vaxers who pulled the wool over your eyes in the past - that's you stuff.

You seem to imply I have a "with us or against us" attitude. I don't; I'm for whatever works.

If the system you're trying to sell belief in worked in a healthy way, there would be accountability for the governments who brought the forever wars, the media who sold them to us, the doctors who prescribed all the opium which just appeared suddenly after we went into Afghanistan. Remember what W said back then, to get us into Afghanistan in the first place? "You're either with us or against us".

But there was none. There is none. The guy who helped cheerlead Dems into that horror under W, then expanded it under Obama, is now President; and making deals with the Taliban begging them not to burn the Embassy in Kabul.

sativallday2• 5 years ago

Immigrate to the United States and you're required to have the following vaccines: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...

whatever_dude2• 5 years ago

Good.

dukeofdoom3• 5 years ago

This needs to be legally challenged. No way does this not violate charter of rights and freedoms and probably Nuremberg codes.

If you let a government force or punitively coerce its people to put a drug in their body for a disease with less than 1% mortality, same magnitude as a flue. You no longer have bodily autonomy. You're a slave to the state. They can do anything they want in the future, under any nebulas threat they want.

Keep in mind that a much more reasonable alternative already exists of just letting people be tested before boarding.

The principal of informed consent must be preserved. A person should make medical decisions with their doctor, and be informed of the risks and benefits and then chose freely.

The ability for people to travel, and see their loved ones, opportunity to work and live where they want is what distinguishes free societies from those that are oppressive and murderous.

The hallmark of the rise of authoritarian states, and one of the first rights to be taken away it the ability to travel freely.

mthoms2• 5 years ago

Your rights end when exercising them puts the health and safety of others at risk. Other people have rights, remember.

It's always been that way. It's the reason gun ownership, driving, drinking, smoking and countless other activities all have restrictions.

I'm not opposed to the idea of testing (within 24 hours of travel) as an alternative requirement though.

dukeofdoom3• 5 years ago

1. Vaccinated people transmit COVID as well. In fact, they're more likely not to show symptoms, so probably more likely to travel and unknowingly infect others.

2. People have covid over a period of two weeks to a month, and in some portion of that they transmit the disease. Of those that haven't had covid yet, most that will get it, will self isolate. The probability that you are transmitting disease at any moment is very small, and is tiny fraction of one's life. This ban is for years to come, life affecting. More likely to cause poverty and real misery that effects life outcomes much more than COVID.

3. This policy is also vindictive and punitive to people that have had the disease already, who are more protected against COVID than those with vaccine that only recognize the virus by a spike protein.

4. At any moment, anyone could have some transmittable disease that puts your health at risk. We can't make the world safe for everyone at all times. There are inherent risks with being a human, and disease is one of them. Dividing society and isolating people based on a minuscule probability that they are spreading disease is wrong headed. Especially a disease that is curable for 99%+ of people. And who can reduce that risk by getting vaccinated for their own protection.

5. Based on the trends in Israel, (early high vaccination rate)the virus just mutated, and evolved, and is happily reinfecting the vaccinated. This happened in a span of months. The further back someone has been vaccinated the more likely they are to get sick.

6. Anyone with a cold or flue can spread disease as well. By this logic anyone with an STD should be barred from having sex. And if we take it the next step. Bars should be closed down because they facilitate the spread of STDs. Groups more likely to carry STDs should be isolated.

This kind of thinking will just lead to more misery than COVID its self. Lockdowns are causing poverty, drug addiction and suicides of young people. Its taking decades off their lives, unlike COVID which mostly is deadly to those in their last year of life.

sativallday2• 5 years ago

Immigrants to the United States are already subject to being required to have certain vaccines. [1]

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...

account422• 5 years ago

Immigration is generally considered a priviledge that can be restricted freely. Being able to live a normal life is a much more fundamental right.

Canada to require vaccinations for air and train passengers

Related Stories