Garry k wrote:
But shouldn't they at least apprise others ( such as me ) about their Covid position before shooting with me >?

both parties are (mis)informed of the risk and still agree to shoot, isnt that everything you need to know?
only you can keep you safe.
i don't know why you would have additional expectations of them in regards to what situation youre willingly putting yourself in. if youre concerned about being exposed to a virus then its wise to limit your contact with people.

Garry k wrote:
….But shouldn't they at least apprise others ( such as me ) about their Covid position before working with them >?..,

No.  Nobody should be required to tell you their position about anything  but you are of course free to ask what you want and decide to shoot or not shoot for any reason you choose.   If a model doesn’t want to provide information that makes you feel safe then pass on that model.  It doesn’t follow you have to pass on all models.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
No.  Nobody should be required to tell you their position about anything  but you are of course free to ask what you want and decide to shoot or not shoot for any reason you choose.   If a model doesn’t want to provide information that makes you feel safe then pass on that model.  It doesn’t follow you have to pass on all models.

Depends on the actual shoot specifics.  Currently in many places in Canada (And I believe in some of the States as well) certain indoor events, depending on number of people there, duration and proximity, the organizers / owners of the location (stadiums / bars / restaurants...)  legally have to have every person entering show proof of double vaccination or they can get some serious fines, lose their liquor license etc...     So if a photographer is hosting a large group, (Would not apply to a single person shoot most likely unless your state/province has stricter rules than most) they very well may need to ask the information.  If the model / HMUA / escort... refuse to answer they would not be allowed to let them in regardless of their own views of the matter.  As a photographer, you are a business, not a group of friends hanging together.  Every place has different laws on this, (And they change frequently based on current covid #s in the area)  so always best to check what are the rules in your city at the time you are shooting.

Garry k wrote:
In my Province We have Health Orders that mandate that People show proof of double vaccination if they attend an Indoor Event of more than 50 people , and restaurants ,bars or lounges

So the last Model I met was at an Event larger than 50 People and She told me that She worked part time at a High End Lounge

Was I wrong ro assume that she had been vaxxed...

For what it's worth, I would have made exactly the same assumptions that you did.

To my surprise, it seems there actually is some kind of a legal "out", for restaurant and lounge STAFF in BC, unless their employer makes it a condition of doing the job under the circumstances (which they can do).  That's just bizarre...

Paolo D Photography wrote:
only you can keep you safe.
i don't know why you would have additional expectations of them in regards to what situation youre willingly putting yourself in. if youre concerned about being exposed to a virus then its wise to limit your contact with people.

Sorry. Utter nonsense.

In a civil society we look out for each other. That is why we come together in various civil and political associations - for the common good. Only in the era of toxic trumpism,  malignant libertarianism, and anti-science/"altrernate facts" do opinions like this gain any degree of currency. In a pandemic/health emergency, withholding vital information on one's relevant status, especially when one is in business to interact with others is dangerously anti-social, possibly criminal, and a threat to the general community. How does one make limiting choices without full and honest disclosure? Just avoid everyone?

Garry k wrote:
Was I wrong ro assume that she had been vaxxed

Was I wrong to assume that it was ok for her to stand close to me not wearing a mask ?

That fact that we are intimidated from asking someone a logical and relevant question about vaccination just goes to show how the anti-vax bullies by threats and intimidation have cowed us all into silence.

Paolo D Photography wrote:

both parties are (mis)informed of the risk and still agree to shoot, isnt that everything you need to know?
only you can keep you safe.
i don't know why you would have additional expectations of them in regards to what situation youre willingly putting yourself in. if youre concerned about being exposed to a virus then its wise to limit your contact with people.

"This model usually pops a bullet or two in her photographers so I'd recommend not shooting with her."

Why are you ignoring the fact that the model is shooting her photographers? Analogy over.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
You folks are free to make your own health care decisions and so should be the people who elect not to get the shots.

First off, despite the propaganda in the media the fact remains that these shots are not vaccines. You do not receive any immunity from these shots. You can still get infected and you can still spread COVID. So if you're worried about getting COVID then you need to isolate yourself and not assume a false sense of security just because someone has had the mRNA shots.

This is neatly illustrated by the fact that 'vaccinated' people have carried the allegedly new variant of COVID into countries like Australia who have very strict requirements about proof of vaccination for travelers. I say 'allegedly' because I have yet to hear how there's a test already deployed world-wide for a variant that just showed up in the last week or so.

Seriously, feel free to step back from photography if that choice suits you. But you might want to give deep consideration to bullying anyone regarding their personal choices because you know there's this thing called 'the internet' where such shenanigans will come back to bite you in the ass.

"First off, despite the propaganda in the media the fact remains that these shots are not vaccines. You do not receive any immunity from these shots. You can still get infected and you can still spread COVID. So if you're worried about getting COVID then you need to isolate yourself and not assume a false sense of security just because someone has had the mRNA shots."

Batshit bullshit. First off, what are your medical credentials giving you any credibility whatsoever? Didn't think so. Second, NO VACCINE IS 100% EFFECTIVE. Reliable reporting from the field has proven the current vaccines to be extremely effective, despite your misinformed claim. One-off anecdotes are worthless, except for assertions from the willfully ignorant.   The truth lies in the broader data, which is CONCLUSIVE. THE VACCINES WORK AS INTENDED. If people weren't influenced by false anti-vaxxer propaganda and a botched initial reaction by a staggeringly incompetent President this pandemic would have probably been over by now.

"But you might want to give deep consideration to bullying anyone regarding their personal choices because you know there's this thing called 'the internet' where such shenanigans will come back to bite you in the ass."

Suggest you heed your own advice.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
You folks are free to make your own health care decisions and so should be the people who elect not to get the shots.

First off, despite the propaganda in the media the fact remains that these shots are not vaccines. You do not receive any immunity from these shots. You can still get infected and you can still spread COVID. So if you're worried about getting COVID then you need to isolate yourself and not assume a false sense of security just because someone has had the mRNA shots.

This is neatly illustrated by the fact that 'vaccinated' people have carried the allegedly new variant of COVID into countries like Australia who have very strict requirements about proof of vaccination for travelers. I say 'allegedly' because I have yet to hear how there's a test already deployed world-wide for a variant that just showed up in the last week or so.
.

This is so full of misinformation that it would be flagged if it were on twitter or any other responsible platform.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
This is neatly illustrated by the fact that 'vaccinated' people have carried the allegedly new variant of COVID into countries like Australia who have very strict requirements about proof of vaccination for travelers. I say 'allegedly' because I have yet to hear how there's a test already deployed world-wide for a variant that just showed up in the last week or so.

Omicron has been determined to have over 30 mutations of its spike proteins - the very thing that the antigens formed either from infection or vaccination trigger on.    If the virus doesn't look enough like the one you had or were vaccinated for, then you won't have (enough) immunity to it.   

The jury is still out on how much those mutations will affect those with prior infections or who are vaccinated. 

Omicron can be discerned from the other variants by examining blood samples.   That's how the first patients are being confirmed to be carrying it, not because there is a commonly-available test yet - there isn't. 

I strongly encourage you to read up a bit on the mechanics of infectious disease from a reputable source as it might give you more clarity into how this all works.

As for the OPs question, I believe you should be informed, but I'm not taking chances because too many people are woefully misinformed on how disease works as we have already seen.  I may be the only person masking up in most places I go, but I am still masking up.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
You folks are free to make your own health care decisions and so should be the people who elect not to get the shots.

First off, despite the propaganda in the media the fact remains that these shots are not vaccines. You do not receive any immunity from these shots. You can still get infected and you can still spread COVID. So if you're worried about getting COVID then you need to isolate yourself and not assume a false sense of security just because someone has had the mRNA shots.

This is neatly illustrated by the fact that 'vaccinated' people have carried the allegedly new variant of COVID into countries like Australia who have very strict requirements about proof of vaccination for travelers. I say 'allegedly' because I have yet to hear how there's a test already deployed world-wide for a variant that just showed up in the last week or so.

Seriously, feel free to step back from photography if that choice suits you. But you might want to give deep consideration to bullying anyone regarding their personal choices because you know there's this thing called 'the internet' where such shenanigans will come back to bite you in the ass.

How sad.

I guess there havent been enough of your friends who have lingered in the intensive care units of your local hospital yet.

I guess the right wing propaganda mills you are listening to havent made clear to you the overwhelming proportion of unvaccinated versus vaccinated in the local morgue.

All I can hope for you is you realize, before it is too late,  that the voices telling you to get vaccinated are trying to save your life, while the voices telling you NOT to get vaccinated are using you as a political pawn.

Joe Tomasone wrote:
As for the OPs question, I believe you should be informed, but I'm not taking chances because too many people are woefully misinformed on how disease works as we have already seen.  I may be the only person masking up in most places I go, but I am still masking up.

You're handling this correctly. You've assessed the information as best you can and you're making informed decisions while allowing others the dignity of doing the same thing.

I'm masking up in public places for the bit of protection it can give. In select circumstances I'm using a full face respirator with N-95 filters. I get odd looks but I don't care.

I guess what's lost here on the other people who responded to me is that I do take the disease itself quite seriously. But I have serious reservations about the mRNA treatments and the claims of efficacy for these treatments.

Due to the stated side effect of cardiomyopathy I will not be getting these shots. I spent 2009-2019 recovering from debilitating congestive heart failure that left my heart at ~20% function and I was for a time a candidate for a heart transplant. I simply do not have the physical tolerance to manage a cardiac impairment.

Bluntly, COVID is less of a risk to me than the mRNA shots are.

Other people are refusing the shots for a myriad of reasons but I am lately noting (particularly in the UK) a growing number of health care professionals starting to question the shots. The current data from the UK Health Security Agency is reporting the shots at 61% to 95% effective and that 34% variance in efficacy would not be tolerated for a vaccine that had made its way through a typical development and approval process. (Contrast that with the MMRV vaccine which has a minimum efficacy rate of 97%.)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u … eek_47.pdf

I recommend reading this latest report from the UKHSA as it raises other questions.

Again, I respect your choices and appreciate that you respect mine.

(-:

LightDreams wrote:
Gold Rush Studio, I understand that you have your personal reasons for deciding against getting the shots.

But it's also important that we separate some of your claimed "facts" from the actual facts (as per the far more qualified WHO).

Please read the WHO's information below.

They make it crystal clear that these are Covid VACCINES, despite your statement to the contrary.

They also make it very clear that vaccines must reach a "50% Efficacy" level, again, completely contrary to your statement claiming otherwise.

Facts are facts.  Your personal decisions are your own.  But please do not spread completely false information and claim that they are facts.

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-s … protection

seriously..the only fact one needs to know is that over 90 percent of the people in the hospital from covid and over 95 percent of the people who (now) die of it - are unvaccinated

no matter what one wants to call it or say about it - over 90 percent of the people in the hospital from covid and over 95 percent of the people who (now) die of it - are unvaccinated

the end!

LightDreams wrote:
For the record.  You are claiming that the WHO is WRONG about the definitions of "Vaccines" and their required "Efficacy Levels"?  Really?

The fact is that the CDC changed their definition in September and the WHO follows the CDC.

Also, you might want to read the article before commenting on it.

goofus  wrote:
seriously..the only fact one needs to know is that over 90 percent of the people in the hospital from covid and over 95 percent of the people who (now) die of it - are unvaccinated

no matter what one wants to call it or say about it - over 90 percent of the people in the hospital from covid and over 95 percent of the people who (now) die of it - are unvaccinated

the end!

Bingo

goofus  wrote:
seriously..the only fact one needs to know is that over 90 percent of the people in the hospital from covid and over 95 percent of the people who (now) die of it - are unvaccinated

no matter what one wants to call it or say about it - over 90 percent of the people in the hospital from covid and over 95 percent of the people who (now) die of it - are unvaccinated

the end!

Public Health Scotland released this report on 24 November 2021.

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media … report.pdf

If you go to table #18 you'll find out that for four weeks running the majority (by a two to one margin) of diagnosed cases were among the vaccinated.

If you go to table #19 you'll find the same ratio of hospitalizations.

If you go to table #20 you'll find the overwhelming number of deaths were among the vaccinated.

LightDreams wrote:
For the benefit of everyone else:

"(Wikiipedia)  PJ Media, originally known as Pajamas Media, is an American subscription-based commentary website of right-wing politics."

This right wing political site, APPARENTLY knowns more about vaccines and efficacy levels than the WHO...?

---

Let's be crystal clear.  Gold Rush Studio and PJ Media's claims about what is, or is not, a "Covid vaccine" and what the "minimum acceptable" Covid vaccine "efficacy" levels are, are in complete disagreement with the facts.  As defined by the actual EXPERTS, the World Health Organization, and just about every other major medical or scientific organization worldwide.

Denouncing the source of the story (which I already disclaimed) does not change the fact that the definition of vaccine was indeed changed by the CDC and ergo the WHO. The story cites their sources and the CDC does not dispute this fact.

Again, the CDC changed their definition of 'vaccine' to fit the mRNA treatment since it does not fit under the previous definition.

LightDreams wrote:
This is getting absurd.  You still are trying to avoid your original statements that were outright false.  IE That these are NOT vaccines, along with false statements about the required efficacy levels.  Completely false misinformation.

Up until September 1, 2021 the mRNA shots most certainly did not meet the CDC definition of what it is to be a vaccine. They do now but only because the meaning of the word 'vaccine' now includes treatments and not actual vaccines. By this standard then both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are also vaccines...which they are not.

LightDreams wrote:
And as far as trying to suggest (truly DANGEROUS misinformation) that more people might die due to vaccinations (with no actual understanding of your Scotland report), well that's just absurd.

You really like accusing me of things I never said, don't you? That's called a 'straw man' or 'ad hominem' argument. Please stop.

LightDreams wrote:
Statistically, as most people are aware, in situations where enough people get vaccinated, by definition the numbers change.

I.E.  If 100% of people are vaccinated, 100% of all of the people who die will have been vaccinated.

If people are dying even though they've had the shot then why get the shot? Especially as more people are dying now that we have the shots than last year when we did not.

LightDreams wrote:
Your false facts, and implications, are now starting to get more and more dangerous.

Does the bad man on the internet scare you with the dangerous scary facts from official government sources? Do you want to bully me into silence or have me censored?

If so then let's go back to my response to the OP where I said this kind of behavior can come back to bite you in the ass. Bullying is never fashionable and if that's who you wish to be known as then that may have an impact on your reputation.

Especially if your loyalty to the Official Narrative turns out to be misguided.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
If people are dying even though they've had the shot THEN WHY GET THE SHOT?  Especially as more people are dying now that we have the shots than last year when we did not.

(added emphasis was mine...)

Just wanted to make sure that everyone clearly understands what you've actually been promoting.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
The fact is that the CDC changed their definition in September and the WHO follows the CDC.

Also, you might want to read the article before commenting on it.

Back in the day, we use to have to click the receiver and get the attention of the switch board operator to make a phone call.  Really.  Party line and everything.  That neck of the woods, in a community of vacation cabins without many year round residents, and at the end of a long dead end road with two farm houses, might of been the last in the county to get touch tone service.  Do you think that the iPhone has change the definition of a phone and the modern phones are erroneously called phones?  They may have many more capabilities, but ultimately many people get them to communicate.

Previously, you claimed the vaccines were not vaccines, not that the definition had been changed.  Changing the definition to accommodate new technology doesn't mean the definition is inappropriate.  It appears to me that is what you are claiming, without substantial any claims or being specific about what your problem with the definition is.  Is the problem that Who follows the CDC?  Then show how the CDC was wrong.  Generally speaking, good science is worth following.  But with God as my witness, if WHO changed the definition and the CDC followed, you would be outraged about that-   World order and all that.

You claimed they didn't provide immunity.  You have not substantial that, either.

I could read whatever articles you link, but you are asking me to be a mind reader:  Is this or that what he has a problem with?  No.  Explain to us what you consider the problem.  If the new technology shouldn't be considered a vaccine or the vaccine definition is in error, tell us why.  Otherwise, you will move the goal posts on us as you did when you switched from claiming the vaccines aren't vaccines to claiming the definition was changed and that makes it invalid.  (Except, without reason, no it doesn't.)

Now you want to call the vaccine a treatment?  I am not buying it just because you are angry and shouting it out.  Why is it a treatment and not a vaccine?

LightDreams wrote:

(added emphasis was mine...)

Just wanted to make sure that everyone clearly understands what you've actually been promoting.

I was responding to your words:

LightDreams wrote:
I.E.  If 100% of people are vaccinated, 100% of all of the people who die will have been vaccinated.

In 2020 there were exactly thirteen cases of measles in the USA. None of these people died from it. All of them were recent immigrants who were not vaccinated.

Despite the presence of new vector cases in the USA there were exactly no infections of people who were vaccinated for measles. The disease did not spread and not one person who was vaccinated was asymptomatically infected.

Because the measles vaccination is a tried and tested and proven vaccine. Once you've been immunized you're immunized for life.

If the mRNA shots worked that way we would not be having this discussion.

But they don't.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
You claimed they didn't provide immunity.  You have not substantial that, either.

They do not confer immunity. According to the CDC they provide 'protection' which is not the same thing.

Here's their definition from August of this year and note that this is directly from their site:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113 … basics.htm

"Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."

And here's their current definition:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210902194 … basics.htm

"Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."

This is the CDC saying this. Not me.

The CDC page on the mRNA treatments also declines to claim these shots confer immunity on anyone. They say the shots 'trigger an immune response' but that's not the same thing as immunity. Which is why they don't say it.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc … /mrna.html

matt-h2 wrote:
In before the lock.

If the personal comments can be avoided then perhaps we can have a decent discussion. That would be nice.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:

"Up until September 1, 2021 the mRNA shots most certainly did not meet the CDC definition of what it is to be a vaccine. They do now but only because the meaning of the word 'vaccine' now includes treatments and not actual vaccines. By this standard then both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are also vaccines...which they are not. "  

I am very glad you do not consider them vaccines, but by what standard are you talking about?  They are not treatments for Covid-19 either.
*************
"You really like accusing me of things I never said, don't you? That's called a 'straw man' or 'ad hominem' argument. Please stop. " 

"A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".  By definition, you are using straw man arguments.  You have not addressed or refuted others, nor have you addressed and supported your statements.

ad hominem |ˌad ˈhämənəm|
adverb& adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
I haven't seen any of those from Lightdreams.
**************
"If people are dying even though they've had the shot then why get the shot? Especially as more people are dying now that we have the shots than last year when we did not. "

What other mitigation procedures were in place last year?  What was the prevalence of the Delta Variant last year as opposed to this year?  Were there state and local governments last year that passed laws preventing employers from requiring vaccination and masking? 

The sun shines and green plants will grow, would seem to be true, but it is not.  It is going into winter here and the tree's foliage is falling to the ground, but the sun is shining.  Other factors need to be met for plants to grow besides sunshine.  There needs to be CO2 and O2, and not too much.  There needs to be water and not too much.  There needs to be nutrients and not too much. 

Fact is, many more people would be dying if it wasn't for the shot and you cannot prove otherwise.  In the Florida surge, the surge tapered as vaccinations rose. 
*************
"Does the bad man on the internet scare you with the dangerous scary facts from official government sources? Do you want to bully me into silence or have me censored?

If so then let's go back to my response to the OP where I said this kind of behavior can come back to bite you in the ass. Bullying is never fashionable and if that's who you wish to be known as then that may have an impact on your reputation.

Especially if your loyalty to the Official Narrative turns out to be misguided.

What do you call that^^^^^?  I call that bullying.  You are belittling and demeaning rather than discussing the subject logically.

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
I'm masking up in public places for the bit of protection it can give. In select circumstances I'm using a full face respirator with N-95 filters. I get odd looks but I don't care.

Why? masks are not 100% effective (just like mRNA vaccines) so why do you "bother"???

Gold Rush Studio wrote:
They do not confer immunity. According to the CDC they provide 'protection' which is not the same thing.

Here's their definition from August of this year and note that this is directly from their site:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113 … basics.htm

"Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."

And here's their current definition:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210902194 … basics.htm

"Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."

This is the CDC saying this. Not me.

The CDC page on the mRNA treatments also declines to claim these shots confer immunity on anyone. They say the shots 'trigger an immune response' but that's not the same thing as immunity. Which is why they don't say it.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc … /mrna.html

"Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose." as opposed to "Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."


Okay, you provided the definition, but silly me, I don't see the problem.  They are essentially the same. Did removing the word specific change the definition?  Isn't the second one more accurate in the real world? You have not provided any explanation of the problem. What is the problem with the subsequent definition?  How does it include mRNA improperly?

"They do not confer immunity. According to the CDC they provide 'protection' which is not the same thing."

Is immunity not a protection?  Does the shot allow the body to produce antibodies?  Do antibodies provide protection from a dose that is not lethal so that when I am exposed to the pathogen, my immune system will recognize it and fight the infection?

Although it hasn't been studied as much as it probably should be, vaccines are sized to the level of expected doses of pathogens.  There have been a few studies which indicate that massive doses of pathogen may override the body's ability to fight to infection even with vaccination.  That makes sense doesn't it?

I do a little wood carving.  Sometimes we use superglue.  We use wood burners a lot.  Did you know that when you burn superglue, it releases cyanid?  I didn't.  I was told after I was dosed.  But I didn't receive a lethal dose, wasn't even bothered.  Does that mean cyanid isn't effective?  No.  Does it mean I can burn cyanid until my hearts content and have no adverse impacts?  No.

Because something is not 100% effective, does not mean it is not effective?  My sunscreen does not keep my skin pasty white, but it does keep me from getting burned so bad that my skin peals off.

Condoms and other birth control methods are not 100% effective.  Should all the women stop using them because an antihistamine might make the pill ineffective or a condom fails?  Maybe it would be safer to use them along with other factors, like not doing it during ovulation? 

I see in the definition below that immunity is "the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin ...."  Does the word resist imply absolute effectiveness?  No, it does not.  Does the word protection mean absolute protection is achieved or the word protection doesn't apply?  My hiking shoes are water proof unless I step in water deeper than the shoes are tall.  Does that mean they don't keep my feet dry or am I somewhat responsible for where I walk?  When I wear a hole in my shoes and water gets in, does that mean the shoes where mislabeled?

immunity |iˈmyo͞onədē|
noun (plural immunities)
the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells: immunity to typhoid seems to have increased spontaneously.
• protection or exemption from something, especially an obligation or penalty: the rebels were given immunity from prosecution.
• Law officially granted exemption from legal proceedings.
• (immunity to) lack of susceptibility, especially to something unwelcome or harmful: products must have an adequate level of immunity to interference | exercises designed to build an immunity to fatigue.

protection |prəˈtekSH(ə)n|
noun
the action of protecting someone or something, or the state of being protected: the B vitamins give protection against infection | his son was put under police protection.
• a person or thing that prevents someone or something from suffering harm or injury: the castle was built as protection against the Saxons | [in singular] : a protection against the evil eye.
• (usually protections) a legal or other formal measure intended to preserve civil liberties and rights.
• a document guaranteeing immunity from harm to the person specified in it.
• the practice of paying money to criminals so as to prevent them from attacking oneself or one's property: [as modifier] : a protection racket | protection money.
• money paid to criminals to prevent them from attacking, especially on a regular basis.
• archaic used euphemistically to refer to the keeping of a mistress by her lover in a separate establishment: she was living under his lordship's protection at Gloucester Gate.