KoreanHockeyFan

Snooped around the page and I couldn't help but notice 95% of the comments and posts are from white people living on the island, or in the Interior or Northern BC. Sorry, I just had to point it out.

Another analogy. Just think about the vaccine as having pocket Aces at poker. You're likely to win the round with that hand, but you're sure as hell not guaranteed to do so. Virus mutations, your immune system, your age etc are all variables on the flop, turn and the river that the dealer could put out and make you lose a.k.a catching the virus and perhaps even being hospitalized with a ventilator stuck to your mouth. But at the end of the day, regardless of what cards come out for the round, would you rather start it with having pocket Aces or 2,7 off-suite? I know what I would prefer.

They can carry as much viral load as the unvaccinated, but they are at a much lower risk of doing so with two vaccine doses. Even if a double vaccinated person gets the virus they are at much lower risk of being hospitalized which helps put less pressure on the public health system. With more than a year gone by of this pandemic, it actually has become quite simple. Vaccines provide people a lower risk of contracting, transmitting the virus or becoming hospitalized in the instance where someone catches the virus after being vaccinated. Therefore, symptoms are less severe and you require less medical care, so public health is less susceptible to becoming overrun. Again, if any of you vaccine hesitant folks believe this vaccine was deceivingly purported as a 100% accurate panacea for COVID-19, I honestly have no idea where you've been getting your news from. Vaccines, like any other medical treatment, are not sure shot cures. The purpose of any vaccine, is to lower risk of catching whatever ailment it is trying to mitigate and to reduce symptoms. I may not be kicking and screaming at you to take the vaccine, but I would encourage you to view the decision to get the vaccine as a simple cost-benefit calculation. Ask yourself, what risks am I incurring by taking the vaccine? What is the benefit? And by benefit, I'm also talking about collective benefits for our society as a whole. Your posts point out how some of the perceived risks of the vaccine have originated from past history. If you happened to be involved in financial investing, you should be familiar with the quote "past performance does not predict future results." You are essentially putting a higher risk weight on history and the potential for it to repeat itself as opposed to the tangible, clinically-proven effects of the vaccine. Can big pharma and the government take advantage of this situation and act in their own interests? Sure, it's possible, but is protecting yourself against that by remaining unvaccinated worth more than exposing yourself and others to a virus that has been proven to kill literally millions of people? Which risk is worth more to you? The decision to get vaccinated is all about weighing the risks that come with whatever choice you make. Feel free to determine which risks weigh more to you, but I'm inclined to believe that the risks that come with being unvaccinated far outweigh the risks of taking the vaccine. Again this is all assuming folks on the vaccine hesitant side of things actually believe COVID is real and has killed a massive amount of people. If we're not in alignment on this fundamental assumption then this whole debate needs to shut down because there's no point in further discussion if both sides are living in two different alternate realities of information and statistics.

A women choosing to do what she wants with her body has no impact on my life; therefore, I believe she should have the right to take the option of abortion, if need be. Someone choosing to not take the vaccine and going into a non-essential public setting does have an impact on my life because that person is at an elevated risk of spreading the virus, which can impact mine. At this point in the pandemic, I think we can acknowledge that there's enough science to suggest that taking the vaccine greatly reduces the risk of spread, so doing the contrary is essentially putting others in harms way. You should really look up John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle before bringing up the Charter and "liberty." It's a nice and simple concept that has served as the backbone of western political philosophy: "the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals." Public health is a public good that we all have a right to. I'd rather not have unvaccinated people roaming around putting pressure on the public health system which can hinder access to those who really need it. You're correct. Too bad you forgot to caveat your statement with how being double vaccinated greatly reduces your risk of contracting, transmitting or being hospitalized because of COVID. Unless you think vaccines are only justified when they work 100% of the time, which in that case, there's no point in having further conversation on this because of a ludicrous expectation.

Well that's a little dramatic.

There's a lot of untapped tax revenue to go towards supportive and market affordable housing. For example, I find it ridiculous that only 50% of capital gains from sales of investment properties are taxed - that needs to be kicked up to 100% of capital gains. I'm not a big expert on how development charges have been used in Greater Vancouver, but municipalities also need to make sure developers putting up a 40 storey condo are paying for a certain quota of affordable housing units (i.e. inclusionary zoning), community amenities, road/sidewalk modifications, etc to compensate for the externalities caused by the additional density they're putting down.

I don't think Trudeau has done a great job on this by any means, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe the Cons are going to do something about it when they keep beating the same "balance the budget" drum at the same time. Spending more money to fix our problems is going to be inevitable - the question is who will use that money most effectively.

It lowers the risk of catching the virus. If you do catch it, the likelihood of being hospitalized is dramatically reduced. Less hospitalizations = less stress on the pubic health system = more people who actually need medical care get the care they need (e.g. cancer patients, chronic diseases, etc).

Ehhh you'll be fine. I'm doing that in Toronto right now with an entry-level job myself, just don't expect a fancy place.

Just like how you have the freedom to smoke, but as a smoker, will have to live with restrictions of where you can smoke, you have the freedom to be unvaccinated, but will have to live with the restrictions of where in society you will be permitted to partake in.

The point of making sure everyone attending is fully vaccinated is to mitigate risk of an outbreak. It is foolish to think that the goal of this is to make it a 100% sure an outbreak will not happen - that's impossible. If an outbreak happens, hopefully the fact that everyone is fully vaccinated puts them at a very low risk of being admitted to the hospital.

We'll agree to disagree then, because I definitely do. The Sedins are the ultimate exception because they have the personalities of both an angel and a rock - it's also helpful to remember that the incredible amount of pressure they were under from the fanbase almost tore them to shreds during the early half of their careers, it's quite well-documented. Not sure about Ballard, but I'm pretty sure the big factor for Samuelsson signing in Vancouver at the time was because he'd no longer be buried in the Red Wings' deep top 6 and would have a chance to play with the Twins. And besides, social media toxicity back in the early 2010s wasn't even as close of a thing as it is now. In the meantime, skip to 3:10 of the video below when you have the time. I treat a former GM's words with more weight than news media pundits - not to mention Burke is saying all of this on air on a sports news media broadcast.

Skip to 6:25 so all of you can relax

I agree with your sentiment, but boy, with that kind of expectation you'd be greatly disappointed if you were an NBA or NFL fan. It's inevitable that younger, star players will broadcast their leverage and use it. Call it entitlement or whatever you want, but it's been the natural progression of star athletes over the past few decades - it's already been in NBA/NFL culture for years.

Legitimizing the negativity just compounds the problem of Vancouver being a toxic hockey market. Friedman always jokes about it on air, and Burke's made several comments about how players legitimately fear Canadian markets because of all the negative media attention. You can say all you want about how professional athletes should be able to handle that kind of pressure, but at the end of they day, they weigh all of their options, and some of them prefer quieter American markets and will make that decision when they sign a contract, which is what ultimately matters. You might be right about the cause of the negatively, but that doesn't fix the problem of players not wanting to come here, or forcing teams up north to pay a premium for their services.

Dude, at the end of the day, all you need to do is your own risk assessment and you can put an end to this. For argument's sake, I'll play along for a bit with your concern that the vaccine is experimental. You don't seem to be an anti-vax conspiracy theorist, so I'm going to assume that you believe this virus is real, and that it is a material threat to people's health and overall lives. With those assumptions in mind, I'd argue that by taking the "experimental vaccine" you vastly reduce your chances of getting hospitalized from the well-known virus of COVID-19. We certainly cannot claim that it protects you from infection, but I think by this point we can say with confidence that your chances of being hospitalized and death is greatly reduced after getting two doses. That is the clear cut, widely known benefit you get from taking the vaccine. I'm assuming one of your concerns from taking this "experimental" vaccine is that we do not know about the other side effects; how our bodies will react to the vaccine in the long-run. Yes, there have been cases where some people have had adverse reactions to the vaccine, and at times, quite severely. However, we do know that these reactions are quite rare and no one, on both sides of the vaccine argument can pinpoint, with certainty, about the long-term affects of the vaccine. So, then, what do we know? Vaccines greatly reduce your chances of getting hospitalized or dying from an ongoing pandemic, and the vaccines could also lead to rare, adverse reactions with a risk of long-term negative health impacts that we do not know yet. So what are you going to hedge your bets against? A known virus that has been well documented and has killed over 4 million people? Or unknown, long-term impacts that are likely to be rare. Think about the probabilities and severities of each scenario and assign a risk level for each. You'll get your answer once you do that.

I think some of the people in this thread are for some reason assuming that we think the vaccine is a 100% full-proof cure, and if it isn't, then it's not worth pursuing It's all about managing risk, people. Risk. Reducing likelihood, not eliminating it, which is practically impossible.

Precisely. Re-posting the article below to reinforce the point above.

Just like how when you're drinking and driving and you're more likely to get into an accident; when you are unvaccinated you are more likely to contract the virus and spread it. You can live your life as is if you choose to be unvaccinated, but be prepared to deal with inconveniences to your life. We're not taking about denying unvaccinated people healthcare or rights to other public goods, but when it comes to more discretionary activities such as going out to restaurants or clubs, you could be questioned at the very least. As for your last point, the private sector should of course weigh both sides before making a decision...and then they can come to the decision that they want their customers to be vaccinated.

If an area is already considered a "hot spot" it's too late - people are already getting admitted to hospitals and ICUs. Public health measures are always more effective when they are implemented proactively, not reactively. Unfortunately, throughout this pandemic, a lot of people don't seem to be able to get a grasp of the situation until they see hospitals at max capacity and healthcare professionals pushed to the brink of being completely overwhelmed. And please, for the love of god, cut the crap with the dictatorship comparisons. You don't need to politicize a public health crisis. Follow the science, not the "what ifs" and slippery slope fallacies.

The brains of some people in this thread: Reap the privileges of living in a 1st world, western democracy ease of access to vaccines when others are begging to get shots free healthcare in a public health system that doesn't collapse on itself during a pandemic but complains about government overreach and "big pharma" when told to put on a mask for the collective safety of others when told to show proof of vaccination when entering public spaces that are susceptible to outbreaks when failing to realize that we live in a capitalist society which requires private firms to make a profit in order to be incentivized to innovate and find solutions and would also probably complain just as much if vaccines were govt made, and thus, can't come up with any other solutions wild assumption: probably also complains about paying taxes and demands freedom and liberty 24/7, but doesn't understand basic western political philosophy whereby everyone in Canada is subject to a democratically elected government which, by nature, has power over everyone within a foundation of legal principles and rules.

I wouldn't take it that far, but yes, these are just accusations at this point - nothing has been proven.

950k seems to be pretty cheap for Perreault. Not bad.

Just makes me wonder what they're going to do if Byram pans out and meets all the hype.