LOLOL!!!!...... I'm posting this just to piss Squeezer off for the rest of the day!!!!!
Chris Sky At It Again
- Thread starter unassuming
- Start date
You owe me a new laptop! I just pissed on the screen god dammit!LOLOL!!!!...... I'm posting this just to piss Squeezer off for the rest of the day!!!!!
View attachment 85669
and this would be an exceptionally tough battle for the government to prove that encroaching on individual choice, for a marginal result is somehow justified. The vaccine does NOT change your probability of becoming infected with COVID during an exposure event. The vaccine does NOT change your ability to spread COVID should you become infected. The vaccine does not prevent symptomatic infection.
the vaccine DOES reduce likeliness of severe complications of infection by a factor of 70-90% depending on an individualâs risk factors.
utilizing section 33 would require the government to prove that a vaccine mandate in violation of oneâs freedom to choose mitigates the risk to the INDIVIDUAL sufficiently to impose such regulations on the masses.
even the Ontario Human Rights Tribunalâs ruling on Friday is carefully worded. They donât make a specific ruling on the lawfulness of current COVID regulations, and rather use language such as âpandemicâ or âinfectious diseaseâ. Bare in mind that to meet the legal standard definition of pandemic, the condition must âaffect a large proportion of the populationâ.
Weâre still below 4% of the province who has been infected; and weâre 18 months on....of those, 5.1% of cases are considered severe. One in five of those severe cases is fatal. For those keeping track, thatâs 0.2% of the population in ontario that has already experienced severe complications requiring hospitalization. 0.068% of the population has died of COVID. All numbers readily available on https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...a-surveillance/covid-19-data-tool?tab=summary
so whatâs the point?
the point is that the government will have an exceptionally tough time enforcing these mandates given the current data trends. Either the âvaccineâ needs to start working a whole lot better, or the virus needs to start getting a whole lot worse. Because any statistical analysis Will punch legal holes in the governmentâs opinion.
youâre right. And those rulings were made for vaccines that actually worked.
the current vaccine offerings are merely therapeutics and not anywhere in the realm of long term efficacy of traditional vaccines. i still recommend people take them as they will reduce your likeliness of developing a severe infection..... however thatâs all in oneâs choice. Statistically, MY âvaccinationâ status does not affect your risk factors. Likewise, YOUR âvaccinationâ status does not affect my risk factors whether I be âvaccinatedâ or not.
this is in contrast to virtually every currently mandatory vaccine such as polio, rubella, or smallpox.
It's not going to matter. As long as these vaccines are proven to reduce hospitalizations, symptoms and mortality rates, the courts will embrace them as the best that medical science can currently do - which they are.
Yes and no. They would have to prove to the House and the Senate that the legislation is justified. I donât think that given our current situation, this will pass a legal sniff test. Additionally, Sec 33 is essentially the ânuclear optionâ and could pose as political suicide for a governing party. You are correct that legislation exercising sec 33 is not subject to judicial review.
HOWEVER precident has been set that the interpretations of âsec 33 allows for prospective derogation only. If enacting legislation purports to give retrospective effect to an override of the Charter, the legislation is, to that extent, of no force or effect.â
Given semantics, Regulations wouldnât fall under this definition as a matter of standing⌠however the potential overreaches made under the Reopening Ontario Act and the Ontario Emergencies Act; it may be tough for the legislation to be pushed forward.
This is where it gets iffy and can potentially set a dangerous precedent.
statsitically, someone who encounters a severe condition of Covid has the same mortality rate whether vaccinated or not.
that said, as above; your chances of severe complications are reduced by 70-90% if youâre fully vaccinated. There is no impact on transmissibility nor infection rates that has been shown in the data so far.
Fully vaxxed people don't get as sick / sick at all and therefore, are infected for a far briefer period than un vaxxed. So their transmission of the virus is correspondingly reduced.
Their antibodies purge the virus in 2-3 days.
The vaxx regs are an easy, slam dunk section 1 win for the government. This won't get anywhere close to s. 33.
If the government can show any rationale basis for the health regs at all, the courts will allow them to stand.
You say Slam Dunk as if theyâre nearly as effective as the talking heads want you to think.
as above, transmissibility does not change. Viral loading does not change. chance of infection during exposure does not change.
The only clinical effect that the two mRNA vaccines are showing is a 70-90% reduction in severe complications due to Covid-19. The range depends on a personâs other risk factors. Long term efficacy of the vaccines too is still a question.
I agree that any mitigation is good mitigation. However, pretending that weâre going to vaccinate our way out of this is simply wrong. Legislating mandates is even MORE wrong.
covid-19 will become endemic. The strategy now should be refining treatments to reduce symptom severity.
Polio and Smallpox vaccines work differently and actually allow your body to produce antibodies that kill those viruses respectively.
the mRNA âvaccinesâ are designed to trigger antibody production relating to a specific protein spike associated with Covid. If the Covid vaccines worked as well as the polio or smallpox types, we wouldnât have breakthrough cases.
I like it.
Catch; forcefully smash tracking chip into flesh, ligament and bone; jab with unrestrained maniacal exuberance; tag with razor wire and/or brand with hot iron and drop kick/release back into the wilds of sub and ex urbia.
Last edited:
You just made the section 1 argument right there.
Legally, it's a slam dunk, even on your summary.
The question than moves onto practical long-term efficacy - especially with variant mutations. Itâs no question that thereâs no simple solution right now, and it would be foolish of any government to want to jump in front of the train (so to speak) with anything beyond âregulationâ.
as is, the province is potentially facing lawsuits over vaccine mandates amongst unionized workers as the provisions being enacted werenât part of previous CBA.
Smells like obfuscation and bullshit. These covid vaccines, including the mRNA ones, also produce an immune response that lowers the risk of infection. This is a basic fact represented in their efficacy numbers.
The smallpox and polio vaccines were not 100% effective either, but they were good enough to bring down the reproduction rate enough.
