Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KoreanHockeyFan

  1. 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.



    • Hydration 2
  2. 7 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

    The relief was negligible in most cases considering what was wrongfully stolen from them. Clearly I'm talking about something you don't understand or don't care to. It is gross overreach and a violation of rights, the dwindling and ever receding rights we have in this country which is another discussion for another day. Many businesses, most businesses, the vast overwhelming majority of businesses were not and are not demonstrable cases of Covid including those mentioned. Instead of continuing the appropriate approach of mask mandating in public venues and limiting numbers which that same majority would agree is reasonable and allows the continuation of business and does not discriminate against any large swath of the public, the government instead went to the little authoritarian playbook and decided to discriminate against that large segment of the population for exercising their right to freedom of movement and freedom of bodily autonomy, and at the same time dictate what private entities can do with their own business and who they can allow into their establishment.


    Yes it is. See above. 


    Well that's a little dramatic.

  3. 26 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

    Actually in Italy they pay your rent as a form of social assistance. But you still have to work to pay for food, clothes, etc. That way it cuts down the homeless people. 

    Maybe some of the taxes they collect from the sale of real estate could go into things like social housing? Maybe make it mandatory for every 20 units you build, you have to contribute one 1 unit of affordable housing? Or applicable percentage? 



    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. 

  4. 8 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

    Don't you think the housing problem involves our elected officials (like our PM) getting off his behind and taking action.   I've seen no substantial action to address the root cause of the housing crisis which we all know is being caused by a few activities.  Joe average can do nothing to correct this. It must be addressed by national policy as this is affecting canadians coast to coast.   Trudeau's token actions to date (aside from "selling access" to the chinese CPC members https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/opposition-accuses-trudeau-of-selling-access-to-chinese-billionaires-1.3174401) was to lower the stress test policy by CMHC for first time buyers which did little to nothing to lower the runaway housing prices that are robbing an entire generation of young Candians.  All that did was let homebuyers get further into debt.   


    So I'm certainly not going to stop "whining" as you call it, on our leaders (currently Trudeau) to TAKE ACTION and stop beating around the bush on this matter.  This is VERY Serious and requires immediate ACTION and if you think this problem is a conspiracy of some sorts, I suggest you talk to the thousands of young Canadians SHUT OUT from the housing market and see if they agree with your lack of empathy or move to Chi na where you can brush everything off as a conspiracy.



    Oh, and BTW, the title of this thread is "Housing Crisis becomes Central Election Topic"  so this is the exactly the right place to post your comments and mine.  (We're all good there)

    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. 

    • Like 1
  5. 2 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

    Apologies for asking a question that has probably been asked and answered several times....


    If those of us who are vaccinated can still 'catch' the virus (even if it doesn't affect us all that dramatically) and spread it, doesn't that give the virus a chance to mutate?

    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). 

  6. On 8/19/2021 at 1:06 PM, BoKnows said:

    I feel that same way. Going to be graduating next year and looking to start my career. I'd love to move to Toronto, but I'm not sure an entry level job can cover the cost of rent in Toronto.

    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. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Vintage 1
  7. On 8/12/2021 at 5:59 AM, Whorvat said:

    When an COVID outbreak occurs at a full hockey game of fully vaccinated people, where does the blame shift then?

    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. 

    • Vintage 2
  8. 1 minute ago, Saved_by_Jesus said:

    The thing is, there is a happy medium between:


    "If we're not winning I'm going somewhere else"




    "I don't care about winning, I just want money"


    and that happy medium is:


    "once we get a fair deal done, I am going to do everything in my power to make sure this is a winning team"


    That's what I would like to hear.

    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. 

    • Hydration 1
    • Upvote 1
  9. 21 minutes ago, AV. said:

    Ehh, I think being a losing and relatively disappointing team over the better part of the last decade stems a lot more negativity from fans than the fans themselves.  In any event, from all accounts, Kevin Epp doesn't exactly speak from an honest or morally sound compass when it comes to matters pertaining to his clients.  Just the other day, he said some questionable, if not deplorable, things in his statement about Virtanen.  IMO, I don't think he's a guy we should be placing water in his words, especially when it comes to this market.  We have had so many players, be it guys on our team or opponents, talk about how Vancouver is their favourite place to play, and how they loved the city, and the passion of the fans, etc.  Hell, even our biggest star to date, Pavel Bure, made it known that his reasons for wanting out of Vancouver had everything to do with management/ownership/the state of the team, and not the fans themselves.


    At the end of the day, Rick's doing his job as a reporter.  He's a damn good one when it comes to signings and trades, so I don't really see a logical reason to flame him or imply he's toxic simply because he's reporting some news (or in this case, translating an article) that implies Pettersson could have doubts about his future.

    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. 

  10. 3 minutes ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

    Rushed just a little bit, I get it was done out of panic, so that does worry me a bit. I actually do trust them, like I've stated yesterday and other times I do believe their intent is to help people, that I strongly stand by, and going by history vaccines have shown to help not denying any of that, but at the same time those vaccines were very thoroughly tested to be safe. I know they keep claiming everything was thoroughly tested for these vaccines, that's what they want us to believe and I do hope that's true, just this vaccine was developed in under a year it's really hard to say if the proper thorough testing was done correctly due to the panic of getting a vaccine so quick. 

    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. 


    • Thanks 1
    • Hydration 1
  11. 14 minutes ago, gurn said:

    So it is less likely.



    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 :lol:


    It's all about managing risk, people. Risk. Reducing likelihood, not eliminating it, which is practically impossible. 

    • Upvote 1
  12. 7 minutes ago, coho8888 said:

    If enough people get vaccinated, the R factor of the virus will be below 1 which will give a chance for the virus to slowly peter out.  Vaccines are there to slow the spread as they make it less likely for someone to get infected or spread it.  Slowing the spread will also prevent more virulent strains from forming.  Vaccines also protect you from serious complications if you do get infected.  You don't just "target" hotspots where infections are high because by that time its already too late.  If we had 95% vaccination rates here, then we wouldn't need these measures.  But major parts of the US are still under 50% which won't cut it.


    Yes you may be right that the virus won't go away anytime soon but that's because of anti vaxxers and covid deniers that keep this virus circulating not because we don't have the tools to get rid of it.



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




    96% of COVID-19 cases are among those not fully vaccinated, B.C. health officials say

    “If you take all the cases from June 15 to July 15, 78 per cent of those cases are among those who are unvaccinated,” Adrian Dix said.





  13. 7 hours ago, drummer4now said:

    This like comparing apples and oranges.. they are both fruits but so different in colour,taste, etc..

    No one is disputing drinking and driving as being bad and a known killer of people with the chance of fatality going up with every increase of blood alcohol level. 

    But with this virus and vaccine there many factors to how one could contract it/spread it. 

    Your notion that only a unvaccinated person might spread COVID 19 and kill someone is incorrect as a vaccinated person could also unknowingly do so. 

    Part of my argument in this particular matter is there should be no consequences for being unvaccinated when the law clearly states it is voluntary to get one. Is it a issue of ethics? certainly but I am just going by what the rules and regulation state. Just like the law says don’t drink and drive period;  I checked everywhere and it doesn’t say no vaccine means you’re not welcomed… nor does it say unvaccinated = killer.  

    People should not be excluded or handcuffed nor should  society be divided up in a two tier system. 
    From seeing the response by the federal government and certain provincial ones this seems to be the case. 

    The private sector has the right to make their own decision, but they should weigh both sides before making a decision…

    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. 

  14. 38 minutes ago, drummer4now said:

    Yes but for how long? Like forever? 
    The virus isn’t going away anytime soon nor are the unvaccinated getting the vaccine. 

    What is the point of voluntary vaccination if you’re going to essentially handcuff people into getting one? You don’t even see this stuff happen in dictatorships. 

    I would only support this tactic in covid hot spots like Florida or Texas not somewhere like BC that has low cases. 

    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. 



    • Hydration 2
  • Create New...