The COVID-19 pandemic

[tomh009]

Use a sick day for that?

My employer actually provides three additional COVID days that can be used for COVID tests, COVID vaccinations or vaccination side-effects. Private employer, not government.

[ijmorlan]

I agree with both of you. I'm only pointing out that what you assert is trivial and obvious is neither.

Yes, I understand you’re not promoting dangerous behaviour. I’m not saying it’s actually easy for management, just lamenting that it isn’t happening and expressing contempt for any suggestion (made by others, not you) that it’s A-OK for “care” workers to endanger their patients. Also criticizing management for not speaking up. I’m pretty sure if hospitals talked to the media they could get pretty positive coverage for a message along the lines of “in order to protect our patients, we would like to require our staff to be vaccinated; but the current laws/rules/regulations don’t allow us to do this”. Of course if the answer turns out to be a bad union agreement, then the blame might rebound on management for accepting such an agreement.

It doesn’t help that apparently some medical “ethicists” are against mandatory vaccination for health workers, on the same bogus grounds that get trotted out whenever the issue is discussed.

[ijmorlan]

When it comes right down to it, the problem is, like driving, we've made a job critical to one's survival. If we had UBI, it'd be easy to say, no, you can't do that job unless you're vaccinated...find something else.

Having a job is critical. Having a specific job is not. I have no problem requiring first responders, educators, medical, and effectively-medical personnel to be vaccinated. If they don’t like it there are still lots of other jobs which don’t require as much adherence to specific safety protocols.

I agree we should have a UBI instead of most of the mishmash of programs we have right now, but I don’t think it’s relevant to vaccination requirements on the job.

[tomh009]

MONDAY 2021-06-21

Waterloo Region reported 60 new cases for today (11.1% of the active cases) and one more for yesterday for 51; 408 new cases for the week (+7 from yesterday, -22 from last week), averaging 11.1% of active cases. 555 active cases, +56 in the last seven days.

Next testing report on Friday.

22,017 doses of vaccine administered over the last three days, with a seven-day average at 7,753 (previous week was 7,131). 60.23% of total regional population vaccinated (+0.36% from yesterday, +2.78% from 7 days ago), 14.36% fully vaccinated (+0.78% from yesterday, +5.90% from 7 days ago).

Ontario reported 270 new cases today with a seven-day average of 334 (-25). 486 recoveries and three deaths translated to a decrease of 219 active cases and a new total of 3,454. -1,920 active cases for the week and 61 deaths (nine per day).  13,828 tests with a positivity rate of 1.95%. The positivity rate is averaging 1.49% for the past seven days, compared to 2.26% for the preceding seven.

New case variants reported today (these are substantially delayed so they do not match the new case numbers):

• b
  
• Alpha (B.1.1.7): 124
  
• Beta (B.1.351): 0
  
• Delta (B.1.617): 136
  
• Gamma (P.1): 24
  

The first day with more Delta variants reported than Alpha. The question is, how old are the samples for this data?

323 patients in ICU (-10 today, -86 for the week)

118,625 doses of vaccine administered, with a seven-day average at 189,333 (previous week was 176,177). 65.86% of total provincial population vaccinated (+0.13% from yesterday, +1.68% from 7 days ago), 20.19% fully vaccinated (+1.68% from yesterday, +7.33% from 7 days ago).

• 44 cases in Waterloo: 7.1 per 100K (based on provincial reporting)
  
• 42 cases in Peel: 3.0 per 100K
  
• 12 cases in Niagara: 2.7 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Brant: 2.2 per 100K
  
• 8 cases in Sudbury: 2.1 per 100K
  
• 11 cases in Simcoe-Muskoka: 2.0 per 100K
  
• 22 cases in York: 2.0 per 100K
  
• 4 cases in Kingston Frontenac: 2.0 per 100K
  
• 11 cases in Durham: 1.7 per 100K
  
• 9 cases in Halton: 1.6 per 100K
  
• 47 cases in Toronto: 1.6 per 100K
  
• 2 cases in Lambton: 1.5 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Southwestern Ontario: 1.5 per 100K
  
• 7 cases in Hamilton: 1.2 per 100K
  
• 12 cases in Ottawa: 1.2 per 100K
  
• 3 cases in Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph: 1.1 per 100K
  

[ac3r]

that it’s A-OK for “care” workers to endanger their patients.

Put this way and yeah...I'd rather have a perpetually drunk nurse take care of me than one who objects to vaccinations that could transmit to me one of the deadliest pathogens in recent time. I'm sure the unions and anti-vaxers will fight this, though, and may likely prevail because freedumb, or something.

[Bjays93]

that it’s A-OK for “care” workers to endanger their patients.

Put this way and yeah...I'd rather have a perpetually drunk nurse take care of me than one who objects to vaccinations that could transmit to me one of the deadliest pathogens in recent time. I'm sure the unions and anti-vaxers will fight this, though, and may likely prevail because freedumb, or something.

Care workers should absolutely be required to take a vaccine. They should be required to because of freedom. The precedent has always been that freedom extends as far not infringing on someone else. Putting someone else's life at unnecessary risk is a natural extension of this and a "freedom" that has never been allowed. 

Saying stuff like freedumb and diminishing the importance freedom isnt at all helpful. We may not like things like unions but they serve a critical function and while it's not always used for good, its much better than having a government that rules carte blanche.

[jeffster]

Use a sick day for that?

My employer actually provides three additional COVID days that can be used for COVID tests, COVID vaccinations or vaccination side-effects. Private employer, not government.

Nope. Though we are 'woke' with the ridiculous policy, so we'll 'call in sick' that day regardless. But you would think government would be OK with their staff using a sick day for this. Better yet, give someone 3 hours or so to go get their shot. Any vaccination side-effects is a sick day. But crickets for testing and crickets for getting the vaccine. Backward thinking.

[jeffster]

We have vaccination requirements for schools.

When it comes right down to it, the problem is, like driving, we've made a job critical to one's survival. If we had UBI, it'd be easy to say, no, you can't do that job unless you're vaccinated...find something else.

Nothing wrong with UBI -- but people need to work regardless. When it comes to care workers, you would think that vaccinations is a part of the job, whatever vaccine you might need. So I don't understand someone getting into a profession working with the sick, the elderly, etc., thinking they can skip a vaccine. You work for the Humane Society, for example, you have to get your shots, there are no ifs, ands or buts. Something like rabies will kill you nearly 100% of the time (something like 20 survivors all-time). Same should apply to all these workers.

[danbrotherston]

Put this way and yeah...I'd rather have a perpetually drunk nurse take care of me than one who objects to vaccinations that could transmit to me one of the deadliest pathogens in recent time. I'm sure the unions and anti-vaxers will fight this, though, and may likely prevail because freedumb, or something.

Care workers should absolutely be required to take a vaccine. They should be required to because of freedom. The precedent has always been that freedom extends as far not infringing on someone else. Putting someone else's life at unnecessary risk is a natural extension of this and a "freedom" that has never been allowed. 

Saying stuff like freedumb and diminishing the importance freedom isnt at all helpful. We may not like things like unions but they serve a critical function and while it's not always used for good, its much better than having a government that rules carte blanche.

I certainly like things like unions. They have their faults to be sure, but those are the same faults that any organization has, and they are in general working to try to benefit groups which traditionally have less representation.

I don't think "freedumb" is mocking freedom. It's mocking people who have a simpleton view of freedom being "I get to do anything I want".

[danbrotherston]

We have vaccination requirements for schools.

When it comes right down to it, the problem is, like driving, we've made a job critical to one's survival. If we had UBI, it'd be easy to say, no, you can't do that job unless you're vaccinated...find something else.

Nothing wrong with UBI -- but people need to work regardless. When it comes to care workers, you would think that vaccinations is a part of the job, whatever vaccine you might need. So I don't understand someone getting into a profession working with the sick, the elderly, etc., thinking they can skip a vaccine. You work for the Humane Society, for example, you have to get your shots, there are no ifs, ands or buts. Something like rabies will kill you nearly 100% of the time (something like 20 survivors all-time). Same should apply to all these workers.

I understand that, I am not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to work. But UBI makes the argument against restricting someone from working in their field much weaker. They can take time to retrain themselves for a new field, or they can sit and sulk if they prefer. But you aren't condemning them to abject poverty, homelessness, etc. I don't know that this argument has been made, but I expect it would be made. It is made all the time for leniency in jail sentences, and especially as an argument against taking someone's drivers license.

As for what they think, I agree, they should expect to get a vaccine (and wear a mask), but it seems many do not. But I don't care what they think, I don't think they should have the right to choose not to...and if it's not currently permitted under our laws, we should change those laws.

And frankly, unions should be more supportive of this type of policy.

[Bjays93]

Care workers should absolutely be required to take a vaccine. They should be required to because of freedom. The precedent has always been that freedom extends as far not infringing on someone else. Putting someone else's life at unnecessary risk is a natural extension of this and a "freedom" that has never been allowed. 

Saying stuff like freedumb and diminishing the importance freedom isnt at all helpful. We may not like things like unions but they serve a critical function and while it's not always used for good, its much better than having a government that rules carte blanche.

I certainly like things like unions. They have their faults to be sure, but those are the same faults that any organization has, and they are in general working to try to benefit groups which traditionally have less representation.

I don't think "freedumb" is mocking freedom. It's mocking people who have a simpleton view of freedom being "I get to do anything I want".

Apologies if I misinterpreted. Being from Hong Kong I often see the term used as a way to describe the protestors who were genuinely fighting for freedom and so it has a very negative connotation in my head. As someone who literally can never return home because the freedoms that once were have disappeared it's something that hits really close to home and something many people who live in the west take for granted. 

I'm always very hesitant to hand undue power to governments. Even as I've been in favour of lockdowns all the way along I'd be lying if it didnt make me a little nervous nonetheless.

[tomh009]

I certainly like things like unions. They have their faults to be sure, but those are the same faults that any organization has, and they are in general working to try to benefit groups which traditionally have less representation.

Yes, basically. But you do get distortions where the unions may go overboard to protect small groups of members, to the detriment of either the wider society, or the rest of their members. For example ...

• Nurses' union opposing vaccination requirements
  
• Some teachers' unions opposing merit-based promotions
  
• Some police unions opposing body cameras or legal responsibility for illegal actions
  
• NHL players' union opposing stronger discipline for violence
  

I may be cherry-picking here, but I don't think the unions represent the majority of their membership in any of the above cases.

[Bjays93]

I certainly like things like unions. They have their faults to be sure, but those are the same faults that any organization has, and they are in general working to try to benefit groups which traditionally have less representation.

Yes, basically. But you do get distortions where the unions may go overboard to protect small groups of members, to the detriment of either the wider society, or the rest of their members. For example ...

• Nurses' union opposing vaccination requirements
  
• Some teachers' unions opposing merit-based promotions
  
• Some police unions opposing body cameras or legal responsibility for illegal actions
  
• NHL players' union opposing stronger discipline for violence
  

I may be cherry-picking here, but I don't think the unions represent the majority of their membership in any of the above cases.

Dont get me started on the NHL players union, the reffing unions or the DoPS. I have been fuming all playoffs and especially after last night and game 3

[plam]

I certainly like things like unions. They have their faults to be sure, but those are the same faults that any organization has, and they are in general working to try to benefit groups which traditionally have less representation.

Yes, basically. But you do get distortions where the unions may go overboard to protect small groups of members, to the detriment of either the wider society, or the rest of their members. For example ...

• Nurses' union opposing vaccination requirements
  
• Some teachers' unions opposing merit-based promotions
  
• Some police unions opposing body cameras or legal responsibility for illegal actions
  
• NHL players' union opposing stronger discipline for violence
  

I may be cherry-picking here, but I don't think the unions represent the majority of their membership in any of the above cases.

I will say that I read the summary of the nurses' union arbitration decision and how the arbitrator concluded that the science (a few years ago) for the mask-or-vaccine policy wasn't that good. It is true that the flu vaccine isn't that effective. But I don't think that precedent should actually apply to COVID-19, where the vaccine has been shown to be much better.

[Bjays93]

Yes, basically. But you do get distortions where the unions may go overboard to protect small groups of members, to the detriment of either the wider society, or the rest of their members. For example ...

• Nurses' union opposing vaccination requirements
  
• Some teachers' unions opposing merit-based promotions
  
• Some police unions opposing body cameras or legal responsibility for illegal actions
  
• NHL players' union opposing stronger discipline for violence
  

I may be cherry-picking here, but I don't think the unions represent the majority of their membership in any of the above cases.

I will say that I read the summary of the nurses' union arbitration decision and how the arbitrator concluded that the science (a few years ago) for the mask-or-vaccine policy wasn't that good. It is true that the flu vaccine isn't that effective. But I don't think that precedent should actually apply to COVID-19, where the vaccine has been shown to be much better.

I concur. I'd argue that masks are actually vastly superior to the flu vaccine but covid is very different