[News] Upd: Canadian NHL Teams to require proof of vaccination to attend any arena events

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Your argument makes no sense. Because one law had no sunset clause, all laws have no sunset clause?

Again, just because something “never goes away” it doesn’t mean laws addressing it can’t have a sunset clause.

The people in government talking about these laws have never said anything about a sunset clause. They have specifically said that the laws are intended to prevent COVID infections – which says to me that as long as COVID exists, the laws are intended to continue in force. Which means that there is no foreseeable end.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by SebC

There is one of three ends:

If R<<1, the end is that covid ends up like smallpox.
If R<1, the end is that covid ends up like measles, or the flu.
If R>1, the end is that everyone's infected, and a lot of people are dead.

Vaccines reduce R. Restricting the unvaccinated reduces R more than restricting the the vaccinated.

Choose your ending.

Smallpox is the only viral disease of humans that has ever been eradicated.

You do not get to ‘choose your ending’. All you get to do is impose restrictions on everyone in the vain hope that it will make the bad germ go away.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You are the one who is extrapolating to the conclusion that forbidding people without vaccine passports to go into any public or private building is a reasonable restriction under the Siracusa Principles. And you are the one who believes that the Sunset Clause Fairy will make either the law or the virus go away.

First of all, as I’ve said, restrictions on entering buildings has nothing to do with freedom of movement, under the Charter or international law. Those laws are about travel, not building entry. And secondly, restrictions in pandemics have already been found to be reasonable restrictions.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

First of all, as I’ve said, restrictions on entering buildings has nothing to do with freedom of movement, under the Charter or international law. Those laws are about travel, not building entry.

Travel is pointless unless you can travel to a destination. If you are not allowed to visit any destination, what freedom have you actually got?

And secondly, restrictions in pandemics have already been found to be reasonable restrictions.

Some restrictions have been found to be reasonable in pandemics. Not all. Flatly forbidding anyone from entering any building other than their own domicile is not a reasonable restriction, and I continue to be flabbergasted that you think it is.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You realize that he wasn’t accurately quoting right? There’s nothing about a passport being a violation in the article. That’s a conclusion Jay has tried to extrapolate. In fact, the article concludes the opposite about restrictions in general.

“ In a democratic society, there should be a balance between fundamental freedoms and public health and safety. When a health issue – such as a pandemic – threatens a whole population and presents a serious danger to others, curtailing our individual freedoms is justified and necessary in order to protect others and ourselves”

Says he wasn't accurately quoting. Quotes a shorter version omitting the part about timeliness and proportion. Keep digging

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Says he wasn't accurately quoting. Quotes a shorter version omitting the part about timeliness and proportion. Keep digging

No, that’s not what I was talking about. Try to keep up.

Everyone knows the requirements for “reasonableness”. What’s incorrect is any suggestion that the article referenced passports at all, or came to any conclusion except that pandemic restrictions were reasonable.

But you don’t have to rely on me, a mere lawyer who dealt with SCC cases on the Charter on the regular when I worked there. You can rely on the head of the Museum of Human Rights.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...tion-1.6124044

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Travel is pointless unless you can travel to a destination. If you are not allowed to visit any destination, what freedom have you actually got?



Some restrictions have been found to be reasonable in pandemics. Not all. Flatly forbidding anyone from entering any building other than their own domicile is not a reasonable restriction, and I continue to be flabbergasted that you think it is.

LOL. There has been zero discussion about “any building” nor about “flatly forbidding”. Because no one has suggested that’s what a passport would entail.

Bath faith arguments.

[GioforPM]

Or if you’d rather an ethicist’s opinion:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...afer-1.6122386

“The case for vaccine passports seems to pass all of Mill's tests: Public health is a supreme value; restoring liberty to as many people as possible as quickly and safely as possible is a pressing social need. There will be a reduction of liberty for the unvaccinated but the harm done will be proportional. “

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...afer-1.6122386

Did you read that? The arguments are absolutely horrible and prove the opposite of what the author thinks it does.

[14Roman14]

The support for this is disturbing.
You all realize this virus has a 99.7 percent survival rate right? What other virus with that high of a survival rate have we ever pushed so hard for vaccinations for? Look back at the survival rate of small pox, tuberculosis, polio, etc. And those vaccines took years of testing and trials before being released for public use despite the low survival rate.
This is segregation and treating people(most of which are not anti Vaxxers, just wanting more testing and trials to prove safety on this one) as less human.
If the jets segregated in any other way such as ethnicity, sexuality, gender, age, what team you cheered for, etc people would be appalled. A few months ago anyone that suggested this as a possibility was called a conspiracy theorist. Now it’s happening and being applauded. Stop watching the news and getting your fear anxiety ramped up. We all struggle with what to believe but basic human rights and not treating others who are not comfortable with getting this shot yet as less human should not be celebrated. If you have yours feel comfortable it will work for you. If you aren’t why did you get it. And if worried about the kids really think hard about why the kids can’t get them. Could it be they aren’t safe? And if so what is the difference between a 12 year old and a 13 year old that’s 12 years and 10 days old or a 19 year old for that matter? Also kids are much more able to fight it off even unvaccinated. In the 99.9 percent survival range. If you want to get vaccinated do it, if not don’t but we really need to treat others how we would want to be treated regardless of their personal health choices for whatever reason. If the segregation was against you for any reason would you feel the same? Humans are humans and should be treated with respect and dignity and policies like this are a slippery slope backwards.

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

The situation you laid out is could happen just as easy if the person sitting next to you is vaccinated or not. Vaccinated individuals can still spread Covid to you, so your best bet is to simply stay home all together given how at risk your family members are. Going to an NHL game should d be right at the bottom of your to do list.

i appreciate what you are saying and i do realize that someone who is vaccinated can still get covid and pass it on. the thing that i've read many times and has been reported on lots in the news is that if a person is vaccinated and gets covid, their "virus load" is substantially less than someone who is not vaccinated. also, vaccinated people are more likely to have less severe symptoms (less coughing/sneezing) so less likely to pass it on. so yes, it is possible to still contract covid from someone who is vaccinated, but the chance is much less than if that individual is not vaccinated.

i totally agree that going to an nhl game should be right at the bottom of my to do list - and believe me, it is. the kicker is that our lives have been at pretty much at a standstill for the last 18 months. i have a shop in my house, so i don't leave home to go to work. my "big outing" is doing a superstore run once about every 10 days at 10pm at night to avoid crowds. the only time i'm there earlier is when i need to get asthma meds for my wife and daughter, so i show up around 8:45pm (pharmacy closes at 9pm). other than that, the only other time i go out is to get a haircut, go to the dentist or doctor. any other 'shopping' is either curbside pickup or done first thing in the morning before crowds... but that is very rare.

i'm in two bands - the one has been on hold until further notice. for the other band we rehearse outside when the weather cooperates, well distanced from each other (and all of us are double vaccinated). any visiting with friends is pretty much nonexistent. thank goodness our kids enjoy each others company becuz they don't do play dates with other kids. we pulled them from all of their activities with the exception of our daughter's piano lessons - which she is able to do with zoom.

so yea - "living" like hermits has been our lives for the last year and a half. the only way it will return to any kind of 'normal' will be when numbers are substantially less, and the science says that's when the vast majority of the population is fully vaccinated.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

No. THEY can do better.
I'm not going to tip toe around people who through willful ignorance or whatever the hell it is - are going to be the VERY reason that we don't get this thing under control. THEY are going to be the ones that prevent us from returning to as much as a normal life as we should.

So no. THEY need to do better.

The decisions they are making impact us all. Their stupidity impacts our very lives.

So no.

F them.

Get the vaccine and be part of society. Don't get the vaccine - fine - stay the eff home and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

For those that can get the vaccine and are choosing not to - I've got no time for you and I have not respect for you. And I'm going to treat those people as they deserve to be treated.

This is where I'm at, hear hear.
I'm sick of progress being weakened by the Fox news and flat-earth youtube types. Sick of their impact on the economy, the health system, travel, everything.
The deniers and anti-maskers all rave about freedom, but only theirs! They care not a jot for people at risk that are trying to avoid catching any of the strains, and thus are curtailing their movement. They care not a jot for a private company's right to keep their staff and workers safe and make their own determination.
Then to make the claim that by curtailing movement based on the consequences of their own choices, is the same as death camps in other eras is the height of cluelessness.
And the banal slippery slope arguments, please! Why don't we try it the other way. "hey I want to enjoy a beverage while I drive my car. If you deny my right to have alcohol in my vehicle whenever I want, what's next!" See it's so pathetic.
It is also so ludicrous to me that the very people shouting that they don't want to take certain measures against COVID are the very ones that are protracting it's length and impact, causing the need for more and more and more actions to be taken.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by 14Roman14

The support for this is disturbing.
You all realize this virus has a 99.7 percent survival rate right? What other virus with that high of a survival rate have we ever pushed so hard for vaccinations for? Look back at the survival rate of small pox, tuberculosis, polio, etc. And those vaccines took years of testing and trials before being released for public use despite the low survival rate.
This is segregation and treating people(most of which are not anti Vaxxers, just wanting more testing and trials to prove safety on this one) as less human.

Let's not forget this virus is not just about survival rate, the damage this virus does to a very significant % of those who survive it includes all kinds of long-term health issues, lungs, heart, etc..

This is not some unstudied issue either, we first started looking at covid variants near 2000, the vaccine itself is based on research from the mid 0's and has lots of studies behind it already.

Spoiler!

These vaccines and what's in them are well studied, well understood and we have used them on hundreds of millions at this point, so any risk or side effects are already well known, and they are minuscule. The risk of harm from the virus to people, death being the worst, complications after contracting it are very serious and it's not just about individual choice since it's a pandemic, a public health crisis. We are trying to save lives, save the health of people, and it is a small ask to get a jab with an incredibly safe vaccine to protect yourself and your loved ones and those who can't get the vaccines.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Travel is pointless unless you can travel to a destination. If you are not allowed to visit any destination, what freedom have you actually got?



Some restrictions have been found to be reasonable in pandemics. Not all. Flatly forbidding anyone from entering any building other than their own domicile is not a reasonable restriction, and I continue to be flabbergasted that you think it is.

Buildings that people are being limited to enter aren't publicly owned. I'm flabbergasted at the ignorance in realizing this.

[Royle9]

Its crazy to me how many people are upset that idea that some of their assumed "freedoms" will be restricted if they continue to choose to be unvaccinated.

This is the best news and I hope they extend this for all public functions/gatherings here in Alberta too (sadly Kenney seems to have gone off the deep end the wrong way).
All those who choose to ignore/decline the vaccine because its their "right" are free to do so, however you live with the consequences of your actions and therefor waive your eligibility to attend/participate in large public gatherings like Arenas, stadiums, airplanes for travel etc. (I wish they would do it for schools too)

If you don't like that, get the vaccine.
People need to stop looking at the mortality rate and instead focus on the long term health of individual's who survive but have yet to recover. The whole notion of "its not going to kill me so who cares" is tiresome. There are a significant amount of people including young adults who have experienced some form of long term health issue after recovering from Covid and could have these side effects for the rest of their life.

Get the vaccine... or no in person hockey for you!

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Buildings that people are being limited to enter aren't publicly owned. I'm flabbergasted at the ignorance in realizing this.

I suspect Jay Random does not understand what entities the Charter applies to. I also suspect Jat Random does not understand the basic requirements to be able to file a Human Rights complaint. Without that base knowledge, one could think that "freedoms" are being restricted.

Online access to government services and phone access would almost certainly allow a government to pass any Oakes Test as it could relate to restrictions to publicly owned buildings.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I suspect Jay Random does not understand what entities the Charter applies to. I also suspect Jat Random does not understand the basic requirements to be able to file a Human Rights complaint. Without that base knowledge, one could think that "freedoms" are being restricted.

Online access to government services and phone access would almost certainly allow a government to pass any Oakes Test as it could relate to restrictions to publicly owned buildings.

The US, which has no Oakes test and is therefore much more absolutist in it’s Constitutional rights laws, has held that even vaccination mandates are constitutional. SCOTUS has also held that barring unvaccinated people from public buildings is acceptable.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The US, which has no Oakes test and is therefore much more absolutist in it’s Constitutional rights laws, has held that even vaccination mandates are constitutional. SCOTUS has also held that barring unvaccinated people from public buildings is acceptable.

I believe that in addition to upholding the legality of vaccine mandates, SCOTUS also upheld the states right to block vaccine mandates in the private sector.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by zamler

Why don't you tell us you how really feel, you hope everyone that gets covid and is not vaccinated dies.

Why stop at just hockey games? Segregate everyone in all activities based on vaccination status.

I'll chime in on this one, if someone who chooses to not be vaccinated and the virus kills them, that is a net benefit to the world. I don't hope people die from covid, but I'm 100% on team virus if someone is too dense to get the shot.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by zamler

Did you read that? The arguments are absolutely horrible and prove the opposite of what the author thinks it does.

Please go on.