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

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The flawed studies showed promise. The better conducted and peer reviewed ones didn't. They can study all they want. Until they have actual results acceptable to a professional standard, there shouldn't be any fuss about them at all. Instead, the rubes are being sold another hydroxy.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ive...-prize-gambit/

However, as I’ve also discussed before (and will again in this post), there is no good evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, although there are low quality studies and, yes, meta-analyses. Worse still for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, the prior plausibility on the basis of basic science is low, because the in vitro cell culture studies that showed activity against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, required a much higher concentration of ivermectin than is achievable in the blood with standard (or even high) doses of the drug. So, as I have said repeatedly, it’s possible that ivermectin might have activity against COVID-19 in humans, but not very likely and, even if it does, it’s even less likely that it will be as efficacious as is being claimed.

Thanks, that is an interesting article - I'll have to read more into it. I have no problem if evidence starts mounting that it is ineffective, I would hope that a large clinical trial can put this to bed, and hopefully we have additional tools to fight Covid. In any case, I currently maintain that there is some promise there (perhaps not as much as originally thought) and I am interested to see if this develops any further.

[Snuffleupagus]

So let me get this straight, the same people who don't trust the scientists who developed the covid vaccines now trust Ivermectin, a drug developed by scientists for cows.

What a world we live in

[GirlySports]

So how does this affect ticket exchanges? Say at 3pm I want to buy two tickets on Stubhub to go to tonight's game? Would that work? Would I have to already be in the Flames system? In the past, I just buy, print and go.

I would have to buy tickets 48 hours in advance? How would the arena know who's walking into the arena? Can they screen 20,000 people before puck drop?

I do like it. I think in the end, having vaccine-proof will be like having insurance to drive a car, but the logistics are really tricky.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The flawed studies showed promise. The better conducted and peer reviewed ones didn't. They can study all they want. Until they have actual results acceptable to a professional standard, there shouldn't be any fuss about them at all. Instead, the rubes are being sold another hydroxy.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ive...-prize-gambit/

However, as I’ve also discussed before (and will again in this post), there is no good evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, although there are low quality studies and, yes, meta-analyses. Worse still for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, the prior plausibility on the basis of basic science is low, because the in vitro cell culture studies that showed activity against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, required a much higher concentration of ivermectin than is achievable in the blood with standard (or even high) doses of the drug. So, as I have said repeatedly, it’s possible that ivermectin might have activity against COVID-19 in humans, but not very likely and, even if it does, it’s even less likely that it will be as efficacious as is being claimed.

Great, I'm sure all the scientists working on further advancements will be happy to know that until they have a proven results no one should mention anything about their work and have zero hope that it will provide any useful benefit to treating Covid in any way.
Shame on VilleN for having a hopeful and optimistic outlook!
Hoping something becomes useful is not advocating people take it currently.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

So let me get this straight, the same people who don't trust the scientists who developed the covid vaccines now trust Ivermectin, a drug developed by scientists for cows.

What a world we live in

Nope, the people who trust the scientists who developed covid are hopeful that studying Ivermectin will lead to further advances in treating covid, at least in this thread.
Apparently being positive about research that originated in the treatment for cows and horses and how it could be applied to humans gets lumped in with everyone should go to a horse farm and get in line for a shot.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

Great, I'm sure all the scientists working on further advancements will be happy to know that until they have a proven results no one should mention anything about their work and have zero hope that it will provide any useful benefit to treating Covid in any way.
Shame on VilleN for having a hopeful and optimistic outlook!
Hoping something becomes useful is not advocating people take it currently.

It's being touted as a cure, and a reason you might not need a vaccination. Why, at this point? It's a distraction.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

So let me get this straight, the same people who don't trust the scientists who developed the covid vaccines now trust Ivermectin, a drug developed by scientists for cows.

What a world we live in

For the last time, I have been vaccinated. Maybe actually read the discussion. Also, Ivermectin won a nobel prize for treating parasites in humans... billions of doses administered. The FDA is being irresponsible and damaging its reputation by claiming it is only a drug for livestock,

[Harry Lime]

This thread is proof that the Vaccine (love you Baby Jesus)/Anti-Vaccine (Richard Dawkins has a soothing voice)/Let's continue to research all avenues (agnostic scum), has finally become religious. I can hardly wait to see what the churches look like, and what kind of hats will be ordained.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's being touted as a cure, and a reason you might not need a vaccination. Why, at this point? It's a distraction.

By the wider public, VilleN never said that.

[GGG]

A thread loaded with blatantly incorrect anti-vax links and arguments probably isnt the best place for a nuanced discussion around the state of invermicen research as a treatment of Covid.

2ndly the statement that the long term side affects of the MRNA vaccine are unknown to me is better looked at from a risk based point of view.

Anyone who doesn’t take the vaccine because we lack data on 10-100 years are basically saying that a 10 fold reduction of risk from Covid and it’s known long term side affect of death as well as long Covid symptoms at various levels of certainty is not worth it.

Essentially a 20-30 yr old person not getting vaccinated is saying that 1/5000 20 -30 year olds will die at some point from the vaccine. So they are betting that about 1000 in Alberta will die from vaccines. If you are above 30 the bet is even more ridiculous.

So you really need to ask when given the two unknowns which has more risk.

People need to understand that by choosing to not get vaccinated they are actively making a decision to acquire Covid and are choosing to take that set of very real and far higher risk.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

By the wider public, VilleN never said that.

He's saying it's "great news for the pandemic" and a possible answer for anti-vaxxers (like it would ever get approved in time to make a dent in that populace). And he's way overhyping the results. There's a reason for that.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He's saying it's "great news for the pandemic" and a possible answer for anti-vaxxers (like it would ever get approved in time to make a dent in that populace). And he's way overhyping the results. There's a reason for that.

First of all, I am doing none of that. You're just being insulting and dishonest now - tell me, what is the reason I am 'hyping' ivermectin? I am secretly an anti-vaxxer? Or maybe I'm an agent for Tucker Carlson... absolute nonsense. I'm trying to have a civilized conversation and I continually get Ad Hominem attacks for absolutely no reason.

Edit: To your point about it never getting approved in time - Ivermectin has long been approved for use in humans, so I doubt it would take long to approve it if clinical studies showed that it was effective. Also, I am saying it would be great news for the pandemic if this was an effective treatment. And yes, it would be great for anti-vaxxers who although I absolutely disagree with, don't want to die from Covid. Not to mention immune compromised people and people with allergies who can't get the vaccine - which you conveniently left out.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

This thread is proof that the Vaccine (love you Baby Jesus)/Anti-Vaccine (Richard Dawkins has a soothing voice)/Let's continue to research all avenues (agnostic scum), has finally become religious. I can hardly wait to see what the churches look like, and what kind of hats will be ordained.

Water cooler jugs with the bottoms cut out?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

First of all, I am doing none of that. You're just being insulting and dishonest now - tell me, what is the reason I am 'hyping' ivermectin? I am secretly an anti-vaxxer? Or maybe I'm an agent for Tucker Carlson... absolute nonsense. I'm trying to have a civilized conversation and I continually get Ad Hominem attacks for absolutely no reason.

Edit: To your point about it never getting approved in time - Ivermectin has long been approved for use in humans, so I doubt it would take long to approve it if clinical studies showed that it was effective.

It will take a long time for as change in use from parasitic infections to a viral treatment.

And those were direct quotes. I say they are over-hype, and for no apparent reason.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca...Page17351.aspx

Edit: there's a support number on this page if the records are not accurate.

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/pages/faqs.aspx

FYI, I called the number here but somehow I got directed to the 811 number. The nurse there said to call the 1-844-401-4016 number and then hit 2 twice in the automated voice system. However she said that they're experiencing technical difficulties right now and suggested to try back at a different time. Maybe that's why I was directed to the 811 number. Regardless, I'll try back again later.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by VilleN

For the last time, I have been vaccinated. Maybe actually read the discussion. Also, Ivermectin won a nobel prize for treating parasites in humans... billions of doses administered. The FDA is being irresponsible and damaging its reputation by claiming it is only a drug for livestock,

They are talking about it because people are taking invermectin specifically formulated for animals. They have a whole FAQ dedicated to it: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinar...tended-animals

Doing your research should at least include looking into FDA’s position before making a judgement on what you believe that position is.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Izzle

FYI, I called the number here but somehow I got directed to the 811 number. The nurse there said to call the 1-844-401-4016 number and then hit 2 twice in the automated voice system. However she said that they're experiencing technical difficulties right now and suggested to try back at a different time. Maybe that's why I was directed to the 811 number. Regardless, I'll try back again later.

Yeah, it's not foolproof. My son was listed as having 3 shots (I think due to a cancelled appointment). We eventually got that fixed.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It will take a long time for as change in use from parasitic infections to a viral treatment.

And those were direct quotes. I say they are over-hype, and for no apparent reason.

What is a direct quote? That I said additional treatments for covid would be great for the pandemic? Controversial. That I said it would be great for anti-vaxxers (and also immunocompromised and those with allergies, conveniently left out by you to paint me a certain way)? Crazy that I shouldn't want people with misguided beliefs to die for their sins.... sounds familiar to me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by VilleN

What is a direct quote? That I said additional treatments for covid would be great for the pandemic? Controversial. That I said it would be great for anti-vaxxers (and also immunocompromised and those with allergies, conveniently left out by you to paint me a certain way)? Crazy that I shouldn't want people with misguided beliefs to die for their sins.... sounds familiar to me.

It's not going to show results, let alone be approved in time for anti-vaxxers. And no, it's not "great news for the pandemic". It's not really any news at all.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

So how does this affect ticket exchanges? Say at 3pm I want to buy two tickets on Stubhub to go to tonight's game? Would that work? Would I have to already be in the Flames system? In the past, I just buy, print and go.

I would have to buy tickets 48 hours in advance? How would the arena know who's walking into the arena? Can they screen 20,000 people before puck drop?

I do like it. I think in the end, having vaccine-proof will be like having insurance to drive a car, but the logistics are really tricky.

They haven't announced the details of how it will be done yet.

Even though they announced the start date as September 15, it looks like the first scheduled event at either the Saddledome or McMahon is the Flames' first preseason game on September 26. They have until then to figure something out.


The screening will almost-certainly need to be done on-site at the time of entrance to confirm the person using the ticket is the person claiming to be vaccinated. As long as you've had your second shot on or before September 12, you should be good to go and you should be able to get a ticket on game day.

I suspect it will be one more step in the admission process -- Vaccination status screening --> Ticket scan --> Security scan. As you pass each one, you get to move onto the next. If you pass all three, you get to enter the building. If done well, it shouldn't significantly add to the time it takes to enter a game.



It would make logical sense for the Flames, Stamps, Oilers, and Elks to all come up with a coordinated system that they could all use --- or preferrably the provincial government could come up with a single province-wide standard that any business could use.