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

Coronavirus outbreak


CBH1926

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, JM_ said:

for sure it is. But all employers have to do is give reasonable notice of a change like that. You don't have a right to your original employment terms, unless you have one hell of a union, but I doubt most have that kind of ultimate power. But for sure thats why we're seeing more and more union push back on the news.

 

I agree with Hip tho that this is a pretty big hornets nest to kick. If most people see EI as an entitlement then even if the gov't is in the right, its a losing PR battle and does give opposition parties some leverage.

But if the terms of employment have changed, and one does not agree to them, they should not lose their access unemployment benefits.  The employer is "moving the goalposts" (not the best analogy, but I'm focused on my fantasy team).

 

IMO, it's just another extension of cancel culture.  They think that everyone should comply, or be punished. Except when it is one of the "sophisticated" people who gets to ignore their own mandates... they'll let that go.  Bullying, plain and simple.  I would think most of the people clamoring for this kinda stuff are already vaccinated.  Those of us who are vaccinated have very little to worry about.  I know I don't worry about it.  Those who aren't vaccinated are not much of a threat to those that are, except for those who are health-compromised to begin with.  And for those with health issues already, they should be taking extra care to protect themselves, because the virus isn't going away

 

But definitely agree, it is a bad PR move for the government to consider, let alone take.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 5:03 PM, Warhippy said:

6.6 BILLION pokes say you're wrong. 

Hundreds of thousands fo medical professionals say you're wrong.

Tens of thousands of individual and paired tests say you're wrong.

Hundreds of peer reviewed papers say you're wrong.

 

But do go on and show us your evidence towards smaller groups, under 50 etc etc etc.

 

Kinda over you weeds popping up in the garden with the same BS information that you'll be unable to actually produce evidence of in full

have you seen the data coming out of the UK? or Israel? perhaps India? or Africa? South America?

As for the Data on people under 50 just look up the CDC website they have plenty there for you.

I am not against the Vaccine, But i am against the unscientific roll out of a vaccine for everyone and literally their dog when it is unnecessary.

Edited by bubba6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bubba6 said:

have you seen the data coming out of the UK? or Israel? perhaps India? or Africa? South America?

As for the Data on people under 50 just look up the CDC website they have plenty there for you.

Provide your links.

Or  go back in this thread, review the last 10 posts by @Jaimito and then tell us where you think they are wrong.

Or just go away.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bubba6 said:

have you seen the data coming out of the UK? or Israel? perhaps India? or Africa? South America?

As for the Data on people under 50 just look up the CDC website they have plenty there for you.

Have you accepted this is now, and has been for some time, a pandemic of the unvaccinated?  If everyone eligible got vaccinated we would have no restrictions.  Get vaccinated.  And when a booster is needed, get that too.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Except for overloading hospitals and causing delay for people with other medical issues.  The only way these losers aren't a threat is if we stop wasting tax dollars on treating them and let them suffer the full consequences of their stupidity.

Are we going to extend that sentiment to those who take drugs, drink, eat, or smoke to excess? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Are we going to extend that sentiment to those who take drugs, drink, eat, or smoke to excess? 

Slippery slope fallacy.  They aren't causing as much destruction to the medical system, and the solution is far easier.  The alternative to just cutting off these losers is to introduce consequences; if they refuse to act like adults, they deserve to be treated like children.   That's what we're doing, and apparently even that is too harsh for these walking biohazards.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bubba6 said:

have you seen the data coming out of the UK? or Israel? perhaps India? or Africa? South America?

As for the Data on people under 50 just look up the CDC website they have plenty there for you.

I am not against the Vaccine, But i am against the unscientific roll out of a vaccine for everyone and literally their dog when it is unnecessary.


In the period between Sept. 4 to Oct. 21 in BC there were 3 deaths in the  20-29 age group and 12 deaths in the 30-39 age group. The numbers are rising in the under 50s rapidly.


 

CDD69534-19F5-468C-8B28-A346391022BC.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Heffy said:

Slippery slope fallacy.  They aren't causing as much destruction to the medical system, and the solution is far easier.  The alternative to just cutting off these losers is to introduce consequences; if they refuse to act like adults, they deserve to be treated like children.   That's what we're doing, and apparently even that is too harsh for these walking biohazards.

Bullcrap.  The costs the government/health care system pays for responding to and treating overdoses, the myriad of problems resulting from smoking, drinking, and poor eating habits are huge.  Putting accidents and secondhand smoke aside, these costs are all resulting from poor choices of that person.  Using your logic, they should all be denied treatment.

 

Maybe if people were more worried about keeping health care workers employed, regardless of vaccination status, then there would be even more capacity to care for patients.

 

The facts are, if you are normally healthy, your odds of dying or requiring hospitalization are pretty low, especially as new treatments are found.  Those odds get even lower when you are vaccinated.

 

The number of serious or critical cases in Canada are less than 800 now (per worldometers.com). I struggle to see how that number could be overloading ICUs.  Things were far worse before, but with the majority of people now being vaccinated, that overloading should remain in the past.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

But if the terms of employment have changed, and one does not agree to them, they should not lose their access unemployment benefits.  The employer is "moving the goalposts" (not the best analogy, but I'm focused on my fantasy team).

But this is nothing new. You can't quit for any reason and get EI. Similarly, if there's nothing discriminatory going on and the employer has followed the rules, then its on you.

 

 

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

IMO, it's just another extension of cancel culture.  They think that everyone should comply, or be punished. Except when it is one of the "sophisticated" people who gets to ignore their own mandates... they'll let that go.  Bullying, plain and simple.  I would think most of the people clamoring for this kinda stuff are already vaccinated.  Those of us who are vaccinated have very little to worry about.  I know I don't worry about it.  Those who aren't vaccinated are not much of a threat to those that are, except for those who are health-compromised to begin with.  And for those with health issues already, they should be taking extra care to protect themselves, because the virus isn't going away

nah, its not. This has been going on long before "cancel culture".

 

Think of it from an employers pov, would you really want to be stuck to never being able to change the requirements of a job? the system needs to be flexible in that way as long as people are treated fairly.

 

There's no bullying at all. If you're in a risky job and choosing not to get vaxxed you have no right to expose people. Employers have the right to provide a safe workplace. There is no bullying happening here.

 

 

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

 

But definitely agree, it is a bad PR move for the government to consider, let alone take.

it'll be a tough sell on the CPC side for sure, and maybe the NDP too on the union side.

Edited by JM_
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

The number of serious or critical cases in Canada are less than 800 now (per worldometers.com). I struggle to see how that number could be overloading ICUs.  Things were far worse before, but with the majority of people now being vaccinated, that overloading should remain in the past.

but it is overloading our system, not just in ICU time but in delayed surgeries and other treatments.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JM_ said:

But this is nothing new. You can't quit for any reason and get EI. Similarly, if there's nothing discriminatory going on and the employer has followed the rules, then its on you.

 

 

nah, its not. This has been going on long before "cancel culture".

 

Think of it from an employers pov, would you really want to be stuck to never being able to change the requirements of a job? the system needs to be flexible in that way as long as people are treated fairly.

 

There's no bullying at all. If you're in a risky job and choosing not to get vaxxed you have no right to expose people. Employers have the right to provide a safe workplace. There is no bullying happening here.

 

 

it'll be a tough sell on the CPC side for sure, and maybe the NDP too on the union side.

The employees who refuse to get vaccinated are not quitting.  Their impending unemployment is at the hands of the employer.

 

I'm not saying the employer cannot change the requirements of the job.  I'm saying that the employee is not responsible for the job loss, and therefore is entitled to unemployment benefits.  

 

The bullying I was referring to was more in general (government, media, social media, etc., and not in that order), not at the employer/employee level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kragar said:

The employees who refuse to get vaccinated are not quitting.  Their impending unemployment is at the hands of the employer.

 

I'm not saying the employer cannot change the requirements of the job.  I'm saying that the employee is not responsible for the job loss, and therefore is entitled to unemployment benefits.  

 

so help me understand, how is vaccination not the employees responsibility?

 

Just now, Kragar said:

 

The bullying I was referring to was more in general (government, media, social media, etc., and not in that order), not at the employer/employee level.

well, thats our new social media age. Agree with me or I'll kill you, seems to be where some folks go way too fast.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JM_ said:

no, because those are personal choices with personal consequences. Vaccination is a community-level choice.

Doesn't matter.  In Heffy's example, all of the cases I bring up are wasting (using his perspective) tax dollars resulting from choices the individual made.

 

Would you deny medical treatment to a drunk driver that injured someone else or destroyed property as a result of their crime?  It's a small subset of the costs, but that is community-level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

 

so help me understand, how is vaccination not the employees responsibility?

The employee did not change the job requirement.  if the employee does not get vaccinated, it is the employer who has to make the decision whether to prevent the person from working.

 

3 minutes ago, JM_ said:

well, thats our new social media age. Agree with me or I'll kill you, seems to be where some folks go way too fast.

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kragar said:

Doesn't matter.  In Heffy's example, all of the cases I bring up are wasting (using his perspective) tax dollars resulting from choices the individual made.

 

Would you deny medical treatment to a drunk driver that injured someone else or destroyed property as a result of their crime?  It's a small subset of the costs, but that is community-level.

if we're basing the decision just on cost, then sure I could see arguing for "forcing" people to do things by choosing less risky lifestyles. But I just can't see that happening via our governments in north america. OK maybe California :P I kid.

 

I think that would be a very hard sell for the majority.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

The employee did not change the job requirement.  if the employee does not get vaccinated, it is the employer who has to make the decision whether to prevent the person from working.

But employees don't get to determine their own job requirements.

 

The slippery slope I see here, is if a person is allowed to collect EI due to their choice to not get vaxxed (we're not talking about legit health reasons, e.g.) then where does that end? what other personal choice would we have to accept for people to go back on the dole?

 

We know the vaccine is much safer than getting covid, thats a statistical fact. So its a personal choice. How do we draw lines around that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

if we're basing the decision just on cost, then sure I could see arguing for "forcing" people to do things by choosing less risky lifestyles. But I just can't see that happening via our governments in north america. OK maybe California :P I kid.

 

I think that would be a very hard sell for the majority.

California is scaring the crap out of me.  Can't wait to get out.  I'm not willing to look for a new job (cuz I doubt I could find one with the same level of pay n benefits), and the places the company will let me move to (and stay employed) are not places I am willing to go.  Can't retire soon enough!

 

You could be kidding, but it'd be a tight race between NY and CA to bring it to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...