Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Pandemic Warnings

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

LightDreams wrote:
In a new approach, Quebec has announced that they are going to impose a "Health Contribution Tax" on those that have refused Covid vaccines on non-medical grounds.

[...]

Canada says vaccine mandates work as Quebec's 'unvaxxed tax' leads to spike in first-dose appointments

By Paula Newton, CNN
Updated 7:30 AM ET, Thu January 13, 2022
----  https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/americas … index.html

(CNN) - One day after the Canadian province of Quebec announced it would financially penalize residents who are unvaccinated, the province's health minister said Wednesday first-time appointments spiked in the hours following the announcement.
"It's encouraging!" Quebec's health minister, Christian Dube, tweeted, indicating that Tuesday's first-dose appointments were the highest in several days.

[...]

... Trudeau underscored that Canada has strict vaccine mandates in place for airline and train passengers, federal workers, and workplaces regulated by the federal government.

"And for people who continue to hesitate or to choose not to get vaccinated, they are losing privileges to do certain things, whether it's get on a train or a plane, whether it's travel internationally, whether it's move forward with a job in the public service," said Trudeau at a news conference Wednesday acknowledging there is continued debate on how best to incentivize the unvaccinated.


Last week, Quebec, where nearly a quarter of all Canadians live, announced that residents would have to be vaccinated to buy alcohol or cannabis. Proof of vaccination is required in order to eat in restaurants, go to the gym or attend sporting events.

[...]

Jan 13 22 07:13 am Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

One clarification to the above.  While Trudeau is very much in favor of vaccine "incentives", he also made a point of not specifically backing the anti-vax "healthcare contribution tax" idea.

In Canada, fundamental healthcare is free and he made a point yesterday of also saying that he would defend the Canadian Healthcare Act, if necessary.  I've previously suggested that I seriously doubt (under Canada's healthcare laws) that such an "anti-vax healthcare tax" idea would stand up in court.  They would have to avoid the "paying for core healthcare" issue.  So "the devil's in the details" as to exactly what Quebec actually comes up with.

But he did applaud the tremendous amount of discussion the issue is raising, specifically around what type of incentives should be in place.  And he certainly has made quite extensive use of his own Federal "you can do this if you're fully vaccinated, but not if you're unvaccinated" regulations.

Jan 13 22 09:45 am Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

I think what is pertinent  regarding the "un-vaxxed tax" is that it is still only a proposal - there are no specifics as to amount, no mechanism for enforcement. As you say, there is significant doubt it would pass legal scrutiny.

But--- the mere mention of it resulted in an increase in vaccinations--- which personally I believe was the Quebec PM's intention --- to spur vaccination rates.

We Americans should note--- Quebec already has around 90% of its citizens with at least one shot-- the US is sitting at about 75% with at least one shot...

Jan 13 22 10:04 am Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

rfordphotos wrote:
We Americans should note--- Quebec already has around 90% of its citizens with at least one shot-- the US is sitting at about 75% with at least one shot...

Absolutely.  It's astonishing how much havoc on the healthcare systems a small percentage of the population can cause.  There would be enough problems right now if everyone was vaccinated.  But the impact of the few that are unvaccinated, in terms of hospitalization numbers, is just stunning.  Especially as this variant is so much more contagious.

They also allow Covid so many more opportunities to mutate into new variants.   Any one of which could prove to be far more dangerous.

There are all sorts of media interviews with people that are unvaxxed who are feeling incredibly defensive right now.   As one put it, they're tired of being blamed for everything that is happening.  And they are, not too surprisingly, feeling "cornered" by the rest of society.

The problem is that a fair amount of that blame (NOT all) IS actually deserved.  And everyone is getting pissed off at continually having to fight this pandemic.  So at the moment, the unvaxxed have (metaphorically) unusually large targets on their backs...

Jan 13 22 11:10 am Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

LightDreams wrote:
[...]

The problem is that a fair amount of that blame (NOT all) IS actually deserved.  And everyone is getting pissed off at continually having to fight this pandemic.  So at the moment, the unvaxxed have (metaphorically) unusually large targets on their backs...

The virus puts a HUGE target on their chests--- then socially responsible, vaccinated citizens paint one on their backs...

For the vast majority, the solution is VERY simple- get vaccinated. --- There ARE a tiny fraction who have legitimate medical reasons and an even smaller fraction with legitimate religious reasons to not get vaxxed.

But--- far and away the majority could get the vaccine and end their "persecution"...

Jan 13 22 11:32 am Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

SUPREME COURT DECISION

As expected, the Supreme Court has BACKED the vaccine mandate for most healthcare workers, BUT OVERTURNED the mandate for all employers that have more than 100 employees.   The expectation was that it was too broad and not targeted properly.

From the Supreme Court ruling:

"Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category,"


Note:  They're still backing the Government's power to require vaccinations (such as the Healthcare Vaccine Mandate),  it just has to be done properly and/or through the proper agency with the appropriate powers.

Jan 13 22 12:03 pm Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

LightDreams wrote:
Absolutely.  It's astonishing how much havoc on the healthcare systems a small percentage of the population can cause.  There would be enough problems right now if everyone was vaccinated.  But the impact of the few that are unvaccinated, in terms of hospitalization numbers, is just stunning.  Especially as this variant is so much more contagious.

They also allow Covid so many more opportunities to mutate into new variants.   Any one of which could prove to be far more dangerous.

It is very often difficult to find ANY good news about this situation.
But--- it does appear that Omicron is resulting in less serious lung damage for the majority of those infected. That, in itself will lessen the impact on the hospitals.

Right now though, we are averaging over 3/4 of a MILLION new cases every day. There is a glimmer of hope that the peak is in sight, indeed in some places the case numbers have begun to fall slightly--- more good news.

But the sheer numbers, the overwhelming numbers of infections right now leads to that small percentage of folks who DO get seriously ill to being a big enough number to put a serious strain on the health care system.

The anti-vaxxers dont like to hear it, but the data STRONGLY shows those most seriously ill are very likely to be unvaccinated.

And- as you say- and as I have mentioned before- the sheer size of the "pool" of infections just gives the virus BILLIONS of opportunities to mutate- and with random mutations, that could be either no problem, or it could turn it into an unstoppable calamity.

Those vaccinated, even if infected with Omicron seem to have far less chance to end up seriously ill---and maybe even more importantly they recover much more rapidly and clear the virus from their systems quicker... that helps limit the mutation possibilities...

Jan 13 22 12:04 pm Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

Recently on this forum the Joe Rogan podcast was discussed - in particular his constant anti-vax misinformation. This video clip from CNN features one of his guests "fact checking" Rogan while live on-air regarding one of the many bits of misinformation Rogan broadcasts every day.

The clip  also mentions the open letter sent to Spotify (who carries Rogan's podcast daily) by more than 250 health care professionals "calling out" the potential damage to public health caused by Rogan's stream of misinformation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Guest corrects Joe Rogan live on his own show. See his reaction

https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2022/0 … ay-vpx.cnn

CNN's Brianna Keilar and epidemiologist Katrine Wallace react to a recent segment on Joe Rogan's podcast debating Covid-19 and vaccines.
Source: CNN

Jan 14 22 10:51 am Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11798

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Focuspuller wrote:

That's hilarious, considering that all of the true "psychos" are on your side of the fence.

"..first it will be fines then imprisonment for not complying. We're on a slippery slope here"

You're talking about anti-abortion laws in anti-vaxxer states, right?

RIGHT?

Nah, we're not the ones insinuating that the other side be locked away in their homes like rabid animals or fine them into backruptcy and subsequent homelessness. I have only seen that level of hate from people like you who lack total empathy and have no regard for the concept of body autonomy. Don't claim to be pro-choice if you believe in this discriminatory 2-tiered society shit

Jan 14 22 03:51 pm Link

Photographer

JQuest

Posts: 2091

Syracuse, New York, US

Interesting, individuals that actually wear masks so as to protect themselves and others from possible infection are being accused of lacking empathy by those that have absolutely no problem infecting others thereby possibly sending them to hospitals or even worse case death by choosing to flat out refuse to wear those masks. I don't think they actually know what the word empathy means.

Jan 14 22 04:05 pm Link

Photographer

Focuspuller

Posts: 1278

Los Angeles, California, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:

Nah, we're not the ones insinuating that the other side be locked away in their homes like rabid animals or fine them into backruptcy and subsequent homelessness. I have only seen that level of hate from people like you who lack total empathy and have no regard for the concept of body autonomy. Don't claim to be pro-choice if you believe in this discriminatory 2-tiered society shit

Yeah, NO ONE is "insinuating"  people should  be locked up "like rabid animals" and fined into "backruptcy and subsequent homelessness." That is the nature of the libertarian bullshit that equates public responsibility with an assault on personal freedom. Personally, I don't give a crap what you do with your "body autonomy" but when your body becomes a public health threat to everybody not YOU, you can damn well expect to be restricted in your movement among society. Dont like it? Go live in the fucking woods.

Jan 14 22 04:13 pm Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Nah, we're not the ones insinuating that the other side be locked away in their homes like rabid animals or fine them into backruptcy and subsequent homelessness. I have only seen that level of hate from people like you who lack total empathy and have no regard for the concept of body autonomy. Don't claim to be pro-choice if you believe in this discriminatory 2-tiered society shit

There certainly appears to be a massive contradiction there...

As I don't want to put words in your mouth, could you please clarify your position on whether or not the unvaxxed should be able to mingle with other people against their will (like in a bar or a movie theater)?

It's just that it sounds suspiciously like you are claiming "body autonomy" but that other people shouldn't have their own "body autonomy" to be protected from the much higher risk resulting from unwilling exposure to the unvaxxed.   Is that a correct description of what you believe?

I'm thinking that it's like parents making a decision to vaccinate their children with any of the standard vaccines.  It's still their choice ("body autonomy"), but the child can't attend a public school if they decide not to.  Due to the risk to everyone else's "bodies".

Or do you believe that everyone should be locked down equally, to make up for the higher risk of exposure from the unvaxxed?

Or...?   Please explain...

Jan 14 22 05:02 pm Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11798

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

JQuest wrote:
Interesting, individuals that actually wear masks so as to protect themselves and others from possible infection are being accused of lacking empathy by those that have absolutely no problem infecting others thereby possibly sending them to hospitals or even worse case death by choosing to flat out refuse to wear those masks. I don't think they actually know what the word empathy means.

Masks are theater, they don't work. Says right on the damn box it doesn't protect from airborne viruses and etc. Like throwing sand through a chain link fence. People need to quit with this mass hysteria over the fucking flu

Jan 14 22 06:01 pm Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11798

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Focuspuller wrote:

Yeah, NO ONE is "insinuating"  people should  be locked up "like rabid animals" and fined into "backruptcy and subsequent homelessness." That is the nature of the libertarian bullshit that equates public responsibility with an assault on personal freedom. Personally, I don't give a crap what you do with your "body autonomy" but when your body becomes a public health threat to everybody not YOU, you can damn well expect to be restricted in your movement among society. Dont like it? Go live in the fucking woods.

If there is anything to be gleaned from the past 2 years of this shitshow it's that people are selfish and think anyone else should be allowed to make their own decisions. I don't answer to you, so take your own fucking advice

Jan 14 22 06:08 pm Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11798

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

LightDreams wrote:

There certainly appears to be a massive contradiction there...

As I don't want to put words in your mouth, could you please clarify your position on whether or not the unvaxxed should be able to mingle with other people against their will (like in a bar or a movie theater)?

It's just that it sounds suspiciously like you are claiming "body autonomy" but that other people shouldn't have their own "body autonomy" to be protected from the much higher risk resulting from unwilling exposure to the unvaxxed.   Is that a correct description of what you believe?

I'm thinking that it's like parents making a decision to vaccinate their children with any of the standard vaccines.  It's still their choice ("body autonomy"), but the child can't attend a public school if they decide not to.  Due to the risk to everyone else's "bodies".

Or do you believe that everyone should be locked down equally, to make up for the higher risk of exposure from the unvaxxed?

Or...?   Please explain...

Thank you for not being a total asshole with your response. Since you seem to be wanting civil discourse I'll bite. Basically, your rights end where mine begin. I should not have to do anything to my body, whether it's something mildly annoying like wearing a mask or something far more invasive and irreversible like having an experimental drug injected into my arm to keep others "safe". No one should be locked down regardless of vaxx status, I've been against lockdowns since the beginning. If the vaxx actually worked like they initially said it would (i.e. it will stop the spread, their words not mine), then there is no reason for the vaxxed to be so deathly afraid of the unvaxxed. But vaxxers like to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to that, guess it's too difficult to admit that they were lied to

Jan 14 22 06:20 pm Link

Photographer

Focuspuller

Posts: 1278

Los Angeles, California, US

"I should not have to do anything to my body, whether it's something mildly annoying like wearing a mask or something far more invasive and irreversible like having an experimental drug injected into my arm to keep others "safe". No one should be locked down regardless of vaxx status, I've been against lockdowns since the beginning"

NOBODY is forcing you to do anything. You just don't like society's response to your anti-social behavior. Too bad.

Jan 14 22 06:54 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2543

Bowie, Maryland, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Thank you for not being a total asshole with your response. Since you seem to be wanting civil discourse I'll bite. Basically, your rights end where mine begin. I should not have to do anything to my body, whether it's something mildly annoying like wearing a mask or something far more invasive and irreversible like having an experimental drug injected into my arm to keep others "safe". No one should be locked down regardless of vaxx status, I've been against lockdowns since the beginning. If the vaxx actually worked like they initially said it would (i.e. it will stop the spread, their words not mine), then there is no reason for the vaxxed to be so deathly afraid of the unvaxxed. But vaxxers like to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to that, guess it's too difficult to admit that they were lied to

No vaccine in history has ever been perfect and no one has ever claimed that any Covid vaccine is an exception to that. Vaccines do prevent the spread of disease, but are only effective at that if enough of the population is vaccinated. Unfortunately, at the moment, too many people are volunteering to be the breeding ground of the next variant instead.

I can’t speak for all vaccinated people, but the ones I know are not “deathly afraid” of the unvaccinated. However, we do see the pointless and largely preventable problems they are causing for society and frankly we are getting tired of the pointless crap be caused by them.  Want “bodily autonomy”? Fine.  Want to be exempt from the consequences of your choices in a society that is trying to protect itself? Not so fine, but that is typical of the crowd in question. They alway scream “freedom” but refuse to acknowledge that freedom to choose does not mean freedom from consequences.

Jan 14 22 07:03 pm Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11798

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Focuspuller wrote:
"I should not have to do anything to my body, whether it's something mildly annoying like wearing a mask or something far more invasive and irreversible like having an experimental drug injected into my arm to keep others "safe". No one should be locked down regardless of vaxx status, I've been against lockdowns since the beginning"

NOBODY is forcing you to do anything. You just don't like society's response to your anti-social behavior. Too bad.

You say "anti-social", I say anti-communist. I'm not government property

Jan 14 22 07:09 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Nah, we're not the ones insinuating that the other side be locked away in their homes like rabid animals or fine them into backruptcy and subsequent homelessness. I have only seen that level of hate from people like you who lack total empathy and have no regard for the concept of body autonomy. Don't claim to be pro-choice if you believe in this discriminatory 2-tiered society shit

Interesting that you seem to expect civil discourse from others but you make posts in which civil discourse is besides the point for you. 

Regardless of what you claim, it is the unvaxxed that are not pro-choice and they are those who disregard bodily autonomy.  As you more or less said with your later angry sortie, 'your rights end at my nose.'  But you refuse all efforts to respect my nose.  Let's look at your false claim that masks don't work:

source:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … topping-a/

"This product is an ear loop mask, this product is not a respirator and will not provide any protections against COVID-19 (coronavirus) and other viruses or contaminants."  (Do you think every brand and type of mask says that on the box?)

"The photo appears to be legitimate. But the words on the label are being misinterpreted as evidence to suggest that masks are not effective. "

"One person who posted the picture wrote: "Gee....wonder how many people are gonna tell me I haven't done my research now? Black and white. Right there. Even the people making the masks know it's all bull.""

"But that’s not what this photo shows. This is a misunderstanding about the kind of protection standard masks provide and a misreading of the disclaimer, which isn’t saying the masks are ineffective at limiting the spread of COVID-19."

"Certain medical-grade masks, such as the N95 respirator, offer the most protection against viral particles for the wearer because it can filter aerosol particles as small as 0.3 micron."

"But other masks, like the ear-loop ones in the photo or homemade cloth masks, are effective in reducing the spread of the disease, or what health experts call "source control." When you wear these masks it is most helpful to people around you."

"But other masks, like the ear-loop ones in the photo or homemade cloth masks, are effective in reducing the spread of the disease, or what health experts call "source control." When you wear these masks it is most helpful to people around you."

"A photograph of a box of disposable masks shows a warning label that says the masks "will not provide any protections against COVID-19."

"Such disclaimers don’t mean that the masks are ineffective at slowing the spread of the disease, but that they don’t protect the wearer as well as medical respirators such as the N95 recommended for use by health care professionals. Disposable and homemade cloth masks are recommended for people to wear because it protects others around them in case they have the virus and may not be showing any symptoms. "

"The users sharing this image are making a false interpretation of the type of protection standard face masks provide. We rate it False."


___________

Consequently, if I am wearing a mask, I am not so much protected from you, but you are protected from me.  Therefore, it is you that is violating my choice, and it is you that is not being civil.  The mask is a very basic concept that has been around medicine for a long time.  They have saved countless lives, along with hand washing and the sanitization of instruments and surfaces.  Getting your news and information from some source not rooted in social media is a good idea.  You might want to try it.

Do you feel like the anti-vaccination people should be entitled to take a child from her mother, whom has the legal authority to decide for her child if she should be vaccinated?  Yet, many anti-vaxxers do.  This action (per the following link) may be one man who opted to violate the rights of the mother, but it is also an action that is being widely supported by people that want to supersede the rights of this mother and others.  That is not respecting the body autonomy of others.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoo … -1.6311123

Jan 14 22 07:20 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
You say "anti-social", I say anti-communist. I'm not government property

You say anti communist, but that is a fear tactic that is untrue in reality and practicality.  Your behavior is anti-social, anti-society, anti-educational and anti-democracy.  Your position is selfish and self absorbed.  Doing what is best for your community by choice, or coercion is not communism.  It is not socialism.  Please cite examples of communist society being built on anything like forced inoculations.

There was a time when people had to be discouraged by law from spitting on the street to help stop the spread of TB.  Did we slide into communism as a result?  When I was growing up, there was no measles vaccine and I eventually caught mumps, measles and a variety of other things.  I had to stay home from school to protect other kids, even though, at some point in their lives, everyone in my class probably caught the diseases.  The way you dismiss covid-19 as flu also tells me that you are inconsiderate enough that if you have a cold or the flu, you do not make any effort to keep it to yourself.  I consider myself fortunate that people in my childhood were not so self absorbed to refuse the polio vaccine for themselves and for their children.  People knew people who had polio, scarlet fever and a bunch of other things and they protected themselves and other people by getting vaccinated.  My father told me about the quarantine signs that were on people's houses when he was growing up and people understood the need to protect their friends and neighbors from the diseases they were exposed to.  So, no, please don't tell us that it is we who have no empathy and it is clearly you that would sacrifice our way of life for some ideal that historically, never existed before the current "me" generations.

You admit that you are self centered and self righteous when you said, "I should not have to do anything to my body, whether it's something mildly annoying like wearing a mask ...."   You can't be bothered to do something mildly annoying to make society a better place?  People do things that are mildly annoying all day long for their benefit and the benefit of others.    They stop at stop signs, they wash their hands after taking a crap, they cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze, they control their tempers and their language (okay, well, you don't do that either (Not being a total asshole is still being an asshole, is it not?)), they chew with their mouths closed, they say please and thank you, they stifle a cough in the theater, we open doors for each other, we pick up after our dogs, we apologize for our children and try to restrain their uncontrolled impulses to do whatever they want whenever they want (a lesson lost on many grown up children today), ....  Do you flush a public toilet after using one?  Do you want others to see the turd you left behind?  Do you prefer men put the seat up before they pee so you don't sit in splashes of urine?  Do you throw your food wrappers and containers on the streets or dispose of them properly in waste cans?  The list of minor little courtesies that we do for other people goes on forever.

Don't tell me that you never wear a scarf or a face covering in the midst of a cold winter wind.   You do that for yourself.  Why can't you wear a face mask for other people if you are the one with empathy?  I doubt that you would walk into a room that has an asbestos warning sign at the entrance without an adequate mask, if you could be convinced to go in at all.  Do you prefer to have to walk through a dust cloud at a construction site without a mask?  Would you wear a mask if you had pollen allergies or would you hack, cough and wheeze all day, instead inside of suffering a slight discomfort by wearing a mask?

You falsely congratulate yourself on a position of superiority when you do not demonstrate empathy.

Jan 14 22 07:25 pm Link

Photographer

Focuspuller

Posts: 1278

Los Angeles, California, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:

You say "anti-social", I say anti-communist. I'm not government property

And 1953 just called. Wants its red-baiting demagogues back.

Jan 14 22 07:30 pm Link

Photographer

JQuest

Posts: 2091

Syracuse, New York, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Masks are theater, they don't work. Says right on the damn box it doesn't protect from airborne viruses and etc. Like throwing sand through a chain link fence. People need to quit with this mass hysteria over the fucking flu

The only one here who seems to have their shorts in a twist is you. That still doesn't change the fact that you accused people who actually give a shit about helping others as lacking in empathy while maintaining your own it's my life I'll do whatever the fuck I want no matter who it hurts attitude. News flash, that attitude doesn't make people like you victims it just makes them assholes.

You're still acting as if you're all butt hurt about not getting the answers you wanted when you accused a photographer of being unprofessional for asking about your vaccine status. I personally don't give a flying fuck about your vaccine status or if you wear a mask. I just wish all you self appointed free thinkers and libertarians would shut the fuck up about how you're being abused while people are actually dying.

https://www.newsday.com/news/health/cor … 1.50474664
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/08/18/do … work-15736
https://www.verywellhealth.com/face-mas … id-5214491
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-update … ually-work
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41790 … ks-prevent
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con … t-20485449

Jan 14 22 07:41 pm Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

deleted, pointless to try and discuss this with a closed mind.

Jan 14 22 07:47 pm Link

Photographer

matt-h2

Posts: 850

Oakland, California, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Thank you for not being a total asshole with your response. Since you seem to be wanting civil discourse I'll bite. Basically, your rights end where mine begin. I should not have to do anything to my body, whether it's something mildly annoying like wearing a mask or something far more invasive and irreversible like having an experimental drug injected into my arm to keep others "safe". No one should be locked down regardless of vaxx status, I've been against lockdowns since the beginning. If the vaxx actually worked like they initially said it would (i.e. it will stop the spread, their words not mine), then there is no reason for the vaxxed to be so deathly afraid of the unvaxxed. But vaxxers like to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to that, guess it's too difficult to admit that they were lied to

Pretty sure this violates the ban on vax misformation. I.e. falsely calling the vaccine experimental.

Jan 14 22 08:37 pm Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Thank you for not being a total asshole with your response. Since you seem to be wanting civil discourse I'll bite. Basically, your rights end where mine begin. I should not have to do anything to my body, whether it's something mildly annoying like wearing a mask or something far more invasive and irreversible like having an experimental drug injected into my arm to keep others "safe". No one should be locked down regardless of vaxx status, I've been against lockdowns since the beginning. If the vaxx actually worked like they initially said it would (i.e. it will stop the spread, their words not mine), then there is no reason for the vaxxed to be so deathly afraid of the unvaxxed. But vaxxers like to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to that, guess it's too difficult to admit that they were lied to

Thank-you for the detailed response...

One comment about "if the vaxx actually worked like they initially said it would (i.e.  it will stop the spread, their words not mine)".

The Pfizer vaccine was proven (in real world practice) to reduce the spread to others by 80%.  But there was one problem and one great big caveat.

First, that was the only version of Covid at the time, the Alpha variant.   Delta changed and the "won't spread to others" percentage was a little lower.  Then Omicron changed things significantly yet again and was FAR, FAR more contagious.

Second, they said from the very beginning (still with the first Alpha version of Covid) that there had to be a big enough percentage of the population vaccinated to dramatically "dry up" the people that Covid could infect.  THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

The percentage of people actually vaccinated when we were dealing with the first version of Covid, was WAY too low.  And the required percentage of people that needed to be vaccinated was higher still for the Delta variant, and was MASSIVELY too low for the latest Omicron variant.

So we never even did what they said needed to be done to stop the spread BEFORE the later variants of Covid changed things even further.  They didn't lie, too many people just didn't do what needed to be done.

The virus changes.  Much of what they know keeps changing as the new variants emerge and as they get more information.  Yes, it's an ever evolving target. Yes, there are people who laugh at some of the early guesses scientists made.  Just as there are people that laugh at people who initially claimed that it was just the flu.   Hell, I remember Trump claiming that if 100,000 Americans die from Covid they will have done "a very good job".

Things change.  As long as the virus still has a large breeding ground, it keeps evolving and we all have to keep adjusting accordingly.

---

A quick note on your separate mask comment.   My mask IS specifically designed to filter out 99.5% of airborne particles (which is how the Covid viruses travel).  It's designed to work for me, and for those around me.  That's not the same as some of the cheapo masks.  While they helped a bit, they're definitely nowhere near as effective with Omicron as they were with the original Alpha version of Covid.

So I just did some research before I chose my mask.  "The right tool for the job", as they say.  So if you want to protect yourself, just choose the right mask (i.e. An N95 or KN95 mask).

Jan 14 22 10:02 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio … id-safety/
excerpts:

As winter break ended, Ximena Santana received a confusing text message. It was from her Oakland, Calif., high school, reminding her to upload the results of the take-home coronavirus test she had been given. The problem was, she had never received a test.

She went back to school, a little wary. There, “no one asked us, ‘Hey, did you take your at-home test?’" By the second day, she and her friends noticed that large numbers of students were absent. Some were sick with covid-19, as case numbers surged nationwide because of the highly contagious omicron variant. Ximena’s friends were scared. She got scared, too.

“We were talking about how can we make school more safe,” Ximena said. Within days, they prepared a petition vowing to stay home until the Oakland Unified School District agreed to take steps, including offering KN95 or N95 masks, holding twice-weekly testing, and creating outdoor space for lunch when it rains.

Ximena and her Oakland friends have a lot of company. In cities across the country, student-led movements are emerging and gaining steam, with teens demanding better safety protections inside schools and, in some cases, pushing for a return to remote classes.

Nearly two years since the coronavirus hit, the adults — parents, teachers, administrators, politicians — have spent a lot of time and energy fighting over what schooling in a pandemic should look like. Now, for the first time in large numbers, students are rising up and demanding that they get a say, too — in places like New York City, suburban New Jersey, outside Washington and California.

Studies last year found scant virus transmission inside schools, particularly when masks were worn consistently, and that was before vaccines were approved for children and teens. Schools that have moved online this month have mostly cited staff shortages due to illness. But some students are not convinced it’s safe.

Thai Jones, a lecturer at Columbia University who studies radical social movements, said the rise of student activism amid the omicron threat reminds him of the youth movement for gun safety that sprang up after the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school and of ongoing teen-led advocacy around climate change.

“What ties those movements together is these are all times when grown-ups have failed young people, where the politics of adults have really let down teenagers,” Jones said. “And so young people have decided to take matters into their own hands.”

Not expecting much, Cantor texted the link to six friends and posted about it on her private Instagram, where she has 800 followers. But it took off and as of Thursday had more than 17,000 signatures.

The school district has said it is sticking with in-person learning, although officials recently promised to hand out test kits and deliver KN95 masks to students, as it has already done for staff. A school spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

Ayleen Serrano, a 15-year-old sophomore at MetWest High, said she does not buy the arguments she is hearing from her school system — and adults generally — on the importance of in-person learning.

“The district is like, ‘Oh no, we shouldn’t do [remote school] because of the students’ mental health,’” Ayleen said. “Back when we were in online school, they didn’t care about our mental health. Now all of a sudden they start caring about it?”

Jan 14 22 11:07 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

Well, we have another anti-vaxxer hitting us with her absurd views, so I feel motivated to share more information, some of which disputes her.  Perhaps Bunny B would care to provide rational rebuttal to the opposing points of view highlighted below.

Ruth Marcus  excerpts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … hypocrisy/






How nice for the Supreme Court. It can take the precautions it deems necessary to keep its workplace safe.

If only the court were willing to extend similar protections to the rest of us, in our workplaces. Or to be more precise, not to interfere with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s effort to provide such protections.

If their job requires that they show up in person, they are, in many states, at the mercy of their employers if their co-workers choose not to be vaccinated or to wear masks. In states with laws that prohibit vaccine and mask mandates, employers who want to adopt such policies are prohibited from doing so.

the justices declined to extend the same protections to others that they grant themselves.

This let-them-breathe-covid attitude would be more understandable if the pandemic were not so serious — or the law that the administration relied on in issuing the mandate were less sweeping.

Of course, people can contract covid anywhere. But as OSHA explained in issuing the mandate, “during the workday, while under the control of their employer, workers may have little ability to limit contact with coworkers, clients, members of the public, patients, and others, any one of whom could represent a source of exposure. … OSHA has a mandate to protect employees from hazards they are exposed to at work, even if they may be exposed to similar hazards outside of work.”  OSHA estimates that its mandate, had it been allowed to continue, would have saved more than 6,500 lives and prevented more than 250,000 hospitalizations over six months.

In substituting its judgment for OSHA’s, the conservative majority noted the unprecedented nature of the mandate, which would have covered 84 million workers. “This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power,’ ” it said, quoting an appeals court judge who voted to block the rule. “It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives — and health — of a vast number of employees. “

But the pandemic is no everyday disease. It is, you might even say, “a significant encroachment into the lives — and health — of a vast number of employees” — one that has killed nearly 850,000 Americans.

How telling that the majority sees this supposed encroachment as a one-way street, an incursion on the autonomy of unvaccinated workers rather than a threat to the majority who have chosen the more responsible course yet remain, especially with the emergence of the omicron variant, at risk of breakthrough infection. In the majority’s worldview, the interests of those workers are nowhere to be found.

And why? Because of this master class in statutory sophistry: “Although covid-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. Covid-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. … Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.”

Simply because? Most Americans don’t have a choice about whether to work or not. They deserve to be able to work in the safest possible environment. My own employer requires proof of vaccination and boosters; it has instructed us, for the moment, not to come to work unless necessary, and to mask up if we do. Why are other workers, in less flexible jobs, not entitled to similar protections when the federal agency in charge of regulating workplace safety has concluded they are warranted?

As to “clear congressional authorization,” the conservative justices like to talk about elephants hiding in mouse holes and the need for legislative clarity when agencies presume to regulate “major questions.” How about the stated purpose of the workplace safety law: to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions”? How about the statutory command to “protect employees” from “grave danger”?

“The majority … substitutes judicial diktat for reasoned policymaking,” wrote the liberal justices, dissenting. Judicial activism in the service of anti-regulatory fervor is still judicial activism — all the more outrageous when the privileged act at the expense of those with far less power.

Jan 14 22 11:46 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus- … 3d185c6261
Expect more worrisome variants after omicron, scientists say. excerpts:

Every infection provides a chance for the virus to mutate, and omicron has an edge over its predecessors: It spreads way faster despite emerging on a planet with a stronger patchwork of immunity from vaccines and prior illness.

That means more people in whom the virus can further evolve. Experts don’t know what the next variants will look like or how they might shape the pandemic, but they say there’s no guarantee the sequels of omicron will cause milder illness or that existing vaccines will work against them.

They urge wider vaccination now, while today’s shots still work.

“The faster omicron spreads, the more opportunities there are for mutation, potentially leading to more variants,” Leonardo Martinez, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Boston University, said.

It’s a possibility, experts say, given that viruses don’t spread well if they kill their hosts very quickly. But viruses don’t always get less deadly over time.

A variant could also achieve its main goal - replicating - if infected people developed mild symptoms initially, spread the virus by interacting with others, then got very sick later, Ray explained by way of example.

“People have wondered whether the virus will evolve to mildness. But there’s no particular reason for it to do so,” he said. “I don’t think we can be confident that the virus will become less lethal over time.”

Getting progressively better at evading immunity helps a virus to survive over the long term. When SARS-CoV-2 first struck, no one was immune. But infections and vaccines have conferred at least some immunity to much of the world, so the virus must adapt.

To curb the emergence of variants, scientists stress continuing with public health measures such as masking and getting vaccinated. While omicron is better able to evade immunity than delta, experts said, vaccines still offer protection and booster shots greatly reduce serious illness, hospitalizations and deaths.

Experts say the virus won’t become endemic like the flu as long as global vaccination rates are so low. During a recent press conference, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that protecting people from future variants — including those that may be fully resistant to today’s shots — depends on ending global vaccine inequity.

Jan 15 22 06:41 am Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Expect more worrisome variants after omicron, scientists say

One of the most worrying things about antivaxxers is how far behind the curve they'll be when they change their mind and want protection.

The stakes for those that were unvaxxed with the first version of Covid was significant.  But the stakes, and the odds, with the Delta variant for those that hadn't even had their first shot, was really much worse.   Now with Omicron, that smaller and smaller percentage of people (the unvaxxed) overwhelmingly "own" the ICU departments (and sadly, the morgues).  Followed by those with one shot, then the numbers drop again to those with two shots, and drops MUCH more for those with all three shots.  Not to mention any additional future boosters over the years.

Keep in mind that to get the full long term benefit of each vaccine, you also need to factor in a significant time gap between doses.

So if the next variant turns out to be worse, and I really hope not, then it's even a big problem for those who've only had their first shot.   The longer the antivaxxers hold out, they more they get further and further behind the "curve", in terms of their level of protection.  The odds of the unvaxxed just keep getting worse and worse at every single stage.

Jan 15 22 12:22 pm Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11798

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Since it's obvious that some of you practically live in the forums as evidenced by the psychotic dog-piling and just can't stand it when someone you don't even know lives their lives differently and vocalizes a differing opinion I'm not even going to acknowledge the novels you wrote in response to my comments. I don't give a flying shit what trolls think of me, I will continue to live my life the way I want and you all can continue being butthurt about it

Jan 15 22 12:43 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Since it's obvious that some of you practically live in the forums as evidenced by the psychotic dog-piling and just can't stand it when someone you don't even know lives their lives differently and vocalizes a differing opinion I'm not even going to acknowledge the novels you wrote in response to my comments. I don't give a flying shit what trolls think of me, I will continue to live my life the way I want and you all can continue being butthurt about it

In other words, you can't support what you believe so you cut and run butthurt?  Why should everyone else be quiet so that you can have your say without responsibility?  Should we appoint one person to respond to you and each of the other trolls that want to come in here with misinformation?  You must have lived in the forums at one time, considering the number of posts you have.  We will also live our lives the way we want to, with empathy towards other people. 

I am a freeman and you do not have the right to tell me what to do, what posts to respond to, especially not when someone like you are trolling us.

See how easy it is to behave like you? 

BTW, if you have something to say to me, you can say it here instead of sending me a pm, so that everyone can see your inappropriate behavior and read your foul language..

Jan 15 22 12:58 pm Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Since it's obvious that some of you practically live in the forums as evidenced by the psychotic dog-piling and just can't stand it when someone you don't even know lives their lives differently and vocalizes a differing opinion I'm not even going to acknowledge the novels you wrote in response to my comments. I don't give a flying shit what trolls think of me, I will continue to live my life the way I want and you all can continue being butthurt about it

Regardless of your feelings or beliefs, the restrictions on your activities are likely going to continue for some time, and may possibly get tighter still.  Unfortunately, the same is true in regards to your odds, health wise.

Covid just doesn't care what any of our opinions are, and the various Governments will continue to do what they have to do.  Whether that's requiring your vaccine passports to do "this or that", or whatever it turns out to be.

Do you want to just get on a plane or a train and go somewhere?  Sorry, if you're unvaxxed they won't let you on.  Do you want to go abroad for a holiday?  Not a chance.  Etc, etc.

Whatever the future has in store for you, I'm afraid that it won't be living your life "the way you want".  And, to different degrees (depending on our vaccine status), that goes for all of us.

Covid just won't be ignored.  As nice as that would be.  And the Governments will continue to react / restrict people accordingly.  Denial about the situation, won't help.

Jan 15 22 01:03 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

LightDreams wrote:
One of the most worrying things about antivaxxers is how far behind the curve they'll be when they change their mind and want protection.

I am constantly reminded of the stories from doctors and nurses where the last words of people are to either deny the virus is real, or they ask for the vaccine just before being put on a ventilator, and they are told, "Sorry, it is too late for that."

Jan 15 22 01:06 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

I was in three different stores today that had those blue face masks for sale.  Three stores, three brands, not one of them "says right on the damn box it doesn't protect from airborne viruses"

Jan 15 22 01:10 pm Link

Model

Bunny Bombshell

Posts: 11798

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

In other words, you can't support what you believe so you cut and run butthurt?  Why should everyone else be quiet so that you can have your say without responsibility?  Should we appoint one person to respond to you and each of the other trolls that want to come in here with misinformation?  You must have lived in the forums at one time, considering the number of posts you have.  We will also live our lives the way we want to, with empathy towards other people. 

I am a freeman and you do not have the right to tell me what to do, what posts to rep[sond to, especially not when someone like you are trolling us.

See how easy it is to behave like you? 

BTW, if you have something to say to me, you can say it here instead of sending me a pm, so that everyone can see your inappropriate behavior and read your foul language..

Lol oh boo-hoo, crying about me telling you off via pm instead of on here. Grow the fuck up

Jan 15 22 01:23 pm Link

Artist/Painter

Hunter GWPB

Posts: 6711

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Lol oh boo-hoo, crying about me telling you off via pm instead of on here. Grow the fuck up

big_smile Whatever

Jan 15 22 01:37 pm Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

Guys- I am sure Bunny is enjoying her choices, living life exactly as she sees fit.

Meanwhile, her neighbors have enacted a few rules to aid in the battle against the virus:

(surely Bunny is complying with the LAW---isnt she?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Last updated: January 5, 2022 at 12:10 p.m.

Toronto is now in a modified Step Two of the Province’s Roadmap to Reopen, effective 12:01 a.m. on January 5, 2022.

COVID-19 guidelines continue, including vaccination requirements and wearing masks or face coverings. The City’s mask bylaws also remain in effect. Stay informed about COVID-19 and changes to City services.

This guide is not legal advice. It is only a summary of some of the relevant provisions of the modified Step Two regulation now in force under the Reopening Ontario Act as a result of the Province’s COVID-19 Public Health Measures and Advice Opens in new window. To ensure compliance with all applicable provincial regulations, individuals and businesses should consult the Reopening Ontario Act Opens in new window and applicable Regulations and/or seek legal advice.

Provincial regulations require that patrons in certain indoor settings provide personal identification and proof of being fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before being admitted.

Learn more about showing your proof of vaccination, getting a vaccination certificate and accessing City facilities requiring proof of vaccination. The Step Two Regulation Opens in new window provides more details and a full list of businesses and organizations that are required to ask for vaccination status.

Summary of Requirements

Step Two – Roadmap to Reopen

Indoor Gatherings and Public Events     Indoor social gatherings and organized public events of up to 5 people from different households are permitted. Face coverings or masks and physical distancing are required for indoor public events.

Outdoor Gatherings and Public Events     Outdoor social gatherings of up to 10 people from different households are permitted. There is no capacity limit for outdoor organized public events, but face coverings or masks are required.

Travel to other Regions     Travel between regions is permitted. Avoid travel between regions of high case counts and regions with low or no cases. Always follow public health guidelines, including wearing a mask and physical distancing, when travelling. Do not travel if you feel sick.

Religious Services: Weddings & Funerals    

Indoor religious services, rites and ceremonies, including wedding services and funeral services, are permitted with capacity limited to 50 per cent of the particular room and subject to public health guidance on physical distancing. Capacity for outdoor services, rites and ceremonies is limited to the number required to maintain physical distancing of two metres.

Social gatherings associated with or following any religious service, rite or ceremony are limited to 5 people from different households if indoors or 10 people from different households if outdoors.

Proof of vaccination is subject to applicable requirements, if any, for the venue (where available for use under provincial regulations).

Event Space Rentals, including Conference Centres & Banquet Halls    

Indoor facilities are closed, subject to certain exceptions (e.g. child care, social services, government and health sector operations).

Outdoor facilities are open with capacity posted. Capacity must be limited to the number that can maintain a physical distance of at least two metres from every other person in the rentable meeting or event space, and in any event must not exceed 50 per cent capacity.

Additional restrictions, where applicable:

    No more than 10 people may be seated together at any table unless everyone seated at the table is a member of the same household.
    Patrons must be seated at all times in any area of the establishment in which food or drink is permitted, except for specific purposes (e.g. washrooms, exiting, entering).

    Liquor sales must cease by 10 p.m. and liquor consumption must cease by 11 p.m.

    Dancing or singing (e.g. karaoke) by patrons is not permitted.

Proof of vaccination is required for outdoor meeting and event spaces, including conference centres or convention centres where the usual maximum capacity is 20,000 people or more, subject to the exceptions as provided (e.g. day camps, child care, government services). The Province of Ontario has classified the Rogers Centre as an indoor venue (for purposes of the regulations), regardless of whether the dome is open or closed.

Retail    

All indoor retail areas are subject to a capacity limit of the lesser of 50 per cent and the limit required to maintain a physical distance of two metres. Masks or face coverings are required indoors and active screening is required for access to indoor malls.

All stores in shopping malls can open. Mall capacity is limited to 50 per cent of the total capacity of the individual stores and businesses in the mall.
Seating in food courts shall be closed and food courts are subject to the requirements for food and drink establishments outlined below (i.e. no indoor dining).

Restaurants    

Indoor dining is not permitted. Restaurants are open only for outdoor dining, take-out, drive-through and delivery, including alcohol.

There are no capacity restrictions for outdoor dining. Restaurants and bars must screen patrons and record patron contact information. All patrons must provide contact information in the event contact tracing is needed.

Food or drink establishments with dance facilities (bars, clubs, etc.) may operate solely as food and drink establishments (i.e. restaurants) under the same conditions. Indoor or outdoor dancing is not permitted.

Masks or face coverings must be worn in indoor premises of food and drink establishments.

Additional restrictions where food and drink are served:

    No more than 10 people may be seated together at any table unless everyone seated at the table is a member of the same household.

    Patrons must be seated at all times in any area of the establishment in which food or drink is permitted except for specific purposes (e.g. washrooms, exiting, paying, pick-up).

    Liquor sales must cease by 10 p.m. and liquor consumption must cease by 11 p.m.

    Premises must close for dining by 11 p.m., although take-out, drive-through and delivery service are permitted outside of those hours.

    Dancing or singing (e.g. karaoke) by patrons is not permitted.

Personal Care Services    

Personal care services, for services which do not require patrons to remove their face mask or covering, are permitted to operate by appointment subject to screening of patrons and a capacity limit of 50 per cent.

People providing services must wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Adult Entertainment Establishments (Strip Clubs, Bathhouses, Sex Clubs)    

Strip clubs are permitted to open solely as food and drink establishments, subject to the same conditions of operation (i.e. no indoor dining). Bathhouses and sex clubs are closed.

Where permitted, operation is subject to screening of patrons and a capacity limit that allows for physical distancing. Patrons must wear masks or face coverings while indoors.

Singing (e.g. karaoke) or dancing by patrons is prohibited. Requirements for food and drink establishments (see Restaurants) will also apply, where applicable.

People providing services must wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Recreation Facilities    

Indoor sports and recreational fitness facilities are closed, with limited exceptions (such as use by professional and high-performing athletes, or access to physical therapy for individuals with a disability as defined by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act). No indoor sports or indoor recreational classes are permitted at any indoor sport and recreational facilities.

Capacity for all indoor areas is limited to 50 per cent. Masks or face coverings must continue to be worn indoors.

Facilities for outdoor sports and recreational fitness activities may open, subject to conditions.

Spectators are not permitted in indoor facilities.
Outdoor spectator seating areas are subject to a capacity restriction of 50 per cent of the area (or area’s usual seating capacity), and other restrictions – i.e. recording contact information, screening and masks or face coverings.

Proof of vaccination is:

    Required for outdoor settings where the usual maximum capacity is 20,000 people or more. The Province of Ontario has classified the Rogers Centre as an indoor venue (for purposes of the regulations), regardless of whether the dome is open or closed.

    Required for patrons seeking access to indoor areas of facilities used for sports and recreational fitness activities.

    Subject to limited exceptions, including places for child care, social services and mental health support services, and patrons under 12 years of age at an indoor sports and recreational fitness facility.

Recreational Amenities    

Indoor recreational amenities are closed.

Outdoor recreation amenities may open, provided that clubhouses are open only for limited purposes, including access to a change room, shower room or washroom, equipment storage, or first aid. Steam rooms and saunas are closed.
Libraries    

Libraries are open subject to a capacity limit of 50 per cent, subject to certain exceptions (child care, social services, mental health support services).

Masks or face coverings must be worn indoors.
Museums, Zoos, Attractions    

Indoor museums, galleries, aquariums, zoos and other attractions are closed.

Outdoor and drive-through attractions may open, subject to conditions.

Capacity is limited to 50 per cent of the usual seating capacity for the outdoor event or activity, subject to other restrictions.

Reservations are required for a seated event or activity at the attraction. If a concert, event, performance or movie is held at the attraction, the conditions for concert venues, theatres and cinemas apply with respect to the concert, event, performance or movie.

Indoor amusement parks and waterparks are closed.

Casinos, bingo halls, and other gaming establishments are closed.

Indoor horse racing tracks, car racing tracks and other similar venues are closed. Outdoor venues of this type are limited to 25 per cent capacity.

Food and drink may only be sold to patrons in restaurants, bars or other food or drink establishments located within the facility operating in accordance with the requirements for food and drink establishments (i.e. no indoor dining).
Concert Venues, Theatres, Cinemas, Film & TV Productions with Studio Audiences    

Indoor concert venues, theatres and cinemas are closed, except for the rehearsal and performance of a recorded or broadcast performance. Spectators are not permitted. Physical distancing and recording of contact information are required.

Outdoor concert venues, theatres and cinemas may open subject to conditions. Spectators must remain seated and capacity is limited to 50 per cent of the usual seating capacity for the concert, event, performance or movie.

Studio audiences are not permitted for film and television production.

Proof of vaccination is required for patrons seeking access to outdoor areas of concert venues, theatres, and cinemas with outdoor areas that have a usual capacity of 20,000 people or more.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


On October 6, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that, as of October 30, the Government of Canada will require employers in the federally regulated air, rail, and marine transportation sectors to establish vaccination policies for their employees.

Also effective October 30, travellers departing from Canadian airports, and travellers on VIA Rail and Rocky Mountaineer trains, will be required to be fully vaccinated in order to travel.

Jan 15 22 01:58 pm Link

Photographer

Focuspuller

Posts: 1278

Los Angeles, California, US

Bunny Bombshell wrote:
Since it's obvious that some of you practically live in the forums as evidenced by the psychotic dog-piling and just can't stand it when someone you don't even know lives their lives differently and vocalizes a differing opinion I'm not even going to acknowledge the novels you wrote in response to my comments. I don't give a flying shit what trolls think of me, I will continue to live my life the way I want and you all can continue being butthurt about it

You came into an ongoing thread hot and hostile. Then you whine about your reception? Boo hoo. Talk about growing up.

"I don't give a flying shit what trolls think of me, I will continue to live my life the way I want and you all can continue being butthurt about it"

You may yet get to live in a world filled only with such like-minded.

It's called HELL.

Jan 15 22 02:06 pm Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 8582

Antioch, California, US

Bravo Australia!

I hope ALL nations stand firm on their entry rules in the face of anti-vax scofflaws like "No-vax" Djokovic
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Novak Djokovic loses visa challenge, says he will ‘cooperate’ and leave Australia

By Michael E. Miller
Yesterday at 4:12 a.m. EST
Updated today at 4:11 a.m. EST
----  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 … alia-visa/

MELBOURNE, Australia — Tennis star Novak Djokovic lost his legal challenge to remain in Australia on Sunday, clearing the way for the country to deport him and ending his hopes of competing in the Australian Open.

After a weekend of hurried court hearings, a panel of three Australian federal justices unanimously upheld the immigration minister’s decision to cancel the unvaccinated athlete’s visa on the grounds that his presence in the country might incite anti-vaccine sentiment and “civil unrest.”

[...]

Jan 16 22 03:35 am Link

Photographer

LightDreams

Posts: 3140

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Fox News viewers,

Despite what you were told on Tucker Carlson with Glenn Beck, there are no "Internment Camps for Anti-Vaxxers" setup in Washington State.  Nor are there plans for such a thing, and no, the meeting to discuss / arrange the (claimed) internment camps, never happened.  Even though you were told the exact date and time of the supposed (false) meeting.  And no, the so-called "Washington State Covid Detainment Emergency" isn't even a thing.

Most of those same viewers probably didn't notice Tucker Carlson rare / sort'a "disavowal" of those claims days later at the very end of his show.   While he acknowledged they'd found no evidence of anything that had been claimed, their "minds remain open and we will continue to look".

Jan 16 22 10:46 am Link