Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-14-2021, 10:45 PM   #61
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Q_ View Post
How about being vaccinated against the flu? Measles? Chicken pox? How many vaccines are enough to gain entry? The argument can be made that all patrons need to be vaccinated against all diseases when a vaccine is available.

I know we're all thinking in the context of the global pandemic, but during normal times, is this Ok?
If this were not a pandemic I would not be OK government mandates, but then neither would most voters I'd presume. As for other diseases, I'm not sure they'd try.


Let's remember, all policies/actions are done to accomplish some specific motivation. What motivation/reward is there for a government to mandate measles vaccine passports unless there's imminent harm? Why would any politician risk blowback for that?????? I just don't understand the slippery slope argument when we're already on the slope, just in a different spot and we move up and down on it constantly.
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2021, 07:57 AM   #62
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
Obviously because people don't want their information stolen.

But not sure the point of this discussion point. The provinces have either made an exemption for the vaccine mandates since they are both under their purview or the vaccine certificates don't fall under the health privacy acts.
We’re not just talking about current measures; we’re speculating about policies going forward. There are competing public interests at stake and where to draw the line is not cut and dried. And the assertions in this thread that it’s no different from ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’ are false. These issues are legally and ethically complex.

Here’s a statement from Canada’s privacy commissioners, outlining the issues at stake and their recommendations:

Quote:
Above all, and in light of the significant privacy risks involved, the necessity, effectiveness and proportionality of vaccine passports must be established for each specific context in which they will be used.

Necessity: vaccine passports must be necessary to achieve each intended public health purpose. Their necessity must be evidence-based and there must be no other less privacy-intrusive measures available and equally effective in achieving the specified purposes.

Effectiveness: vaccine passports must be likely to be effective at achieving each of their defined purposes at the outset and must continue to be effective throughout their lifecycle.

Proportionality: the privacy risks associated with vaccine passports must be proportionate to each of the public health purposes they are intended to address. Data minimization should be applied so that the least amount of personal health information is collected, used or disclosed.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/s.../s-d_20210519/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2021, 08:06 AM   #63
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

All that sounds entirely reasonable, and in no way excludes us form getting vaccine passports now. In the future, when those conditions change, we can re-evaluate. Sounds like we already have a good framework in place, so what's the fear?
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2021, 08:10 AM   #64
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
What motivation/reward is there for a government to mandate measles vaccine passports unless there's imminent harm? Why would any politician risk blowback for that?????? I just don't understand the slippery slope argument when we're already on the slope, just in a different spot and we move up and down on it constantly.
Bad flu seasons can already put health care capacity under such strain that surgeries are cancelled. Only about 40 per cent of Canadians get a flu vaccine in any given year. Since covid is likely to become endemic, we should expect that some years flu + covid cases will threaten to overwhelm health care capacity.

If cancelled surgeries is the trip-wire for enacting measures intended to increase vaccinations and reduce community spread in 2021, why wouldn’t we expect that to hold true in 2023 or 2026?

This all needs to be considered in the context of a Canadian health care system that routinely operates at 95 per cent to 100+ per cent capacity, with an aging population that will only put greater pressure on resources going forward.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2021, 08:19 AM   #65
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

That's not entirely true. It may happen in a hospital by hospital situation, but to put this in perspective, from 2006 to 2012 there were 626 patients admitted ICU across Canada.

ICU is almost always full. There is almost never a bunch of spare capacity sitting around. If a bunch of people need ICU there will always be trade-offs but we can see flu is on a different level than even the low points of COVID.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2021, 08:31 AM   #66
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
We’re not just talking about current measures; we’re speculating about policies going forward. There are competing public interests at stake and where to draw the line is not cut and dried. And the assertions in this thread that it’s no different from ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’ are false. These issues are legally and ethically complex.

Here’s a statement from Canada’s privacy commissioners, outlining the issues at stake and their recommendations:



https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/s.../s-d_20210519/
To be clear, that discussion was with respect to action taken voluntarily by a private business, not a government mandate (which obviously involves other considerations).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2021, 10:16 AM   #67
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2021, 12:47 PM   #68
Matata
First Line Centre
 
Matata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Snowden
As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what’ is being built is the architecture of oppression.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvge...-of-oppression
Matata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2021, 12:57 PM   #69
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata View Post
Um, Mr. Snowden, THIS is the architecture of oppression:

__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2021, 12:58 PM   #70
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

My brain always plays The Imperial March when I see that thing.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2021, 01:16 PM   #71
DoubleF
#1 Goaltender
 
DoubleF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Philosophically about this, I'm basically a hypocrite like Voltaire. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I'm double vaxxed. It's their right to be unvaxxed. But I'm so freaking angry to the point that I basically have this crazy anger fantasy where I hope someone drags them out of their beds at night, lines them up in front of their home and shoots them... with the vaccine. I think this, and then I feel kinda embarrassed for thinking this.

Now, I am of the stance that in a state of emergency, citizens may have to suspend their rights to ensure decisive action. So to answer the question in OP: Yes. Individual rights should be allowed to be suspended to improve successful responses during an emergency.

But I'll also say that once citizens have accepted their responsibility to have their rights suspended to improve the emergency response, a citizen should not perceive they need not contribute further responsibility to further improve successful outcomes of an emergency situation.

Not the most historically accurate source, but in the Dark Knight, Harvey Dent (at dinner) mentions that when the enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. It wasn't honor, it was a public service. In our case, the enemy is Covid. However, I feel that many have mistaken the enemy for each other with a dissenting opinions on whether Covid meets the definition of "an enemy" worth suspending our rights for.

Covid hasn't opened up a new view of a debate relating to rights. It has merely helped many to focus the magnifying glass on the topic of rights that has existed for quite a while now. A few years ago, there was an open debate about the responsibilities that comes with the rights we enjoy. There was lots of lamenting regarding the tepid interest in voting. There was lamenting about the complaints people had regarding the emergency broadcasts/amber alerts that "woke them up" and demands from some individuals for the ability to disable it (ie: Elect out of their responsibility to share awareness) which was denied.


There are times where the government is required to overrule the freedoms of individuals for the common good. The vast majority has perceived that Covid meets the requirements for a reason to invoke that power. A vocal minority has perceived that Covid does not meet that requirement to invoke that power. To simplify it, the reasoning for or against doesn't really matter as it doesn't change the end result.

But a choice must be made. There really isn't an effective choice that is a combination of both. Those that define Covid as an appropriate reason to invoke a state of emergency will likely agree to giving the government the power to be decisive by suspending their freedoms as part of their responsibility.

It seems the minority who do not define Covid as an appropriate reason may not be able to sustain such an opinion without facing repercussions from a mostly majority supported government decision, or via confrontation from the majority who have the dissenting opinion.
DoubleF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2021, 01:35 PM   #72
Twitchy15
Farm Team Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I am just so tired of it all and frustrated with how selfish so many people are.
__________________
Instagram YYCjerseys
Twitchy15 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Twitchy15 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2021, 02:44 PM   #73
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleF View Post
Philosophically about this, I'm basically a hypocrite like Voltaire. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I'm double vaxxed. It's their right to be unvaxxed. But I'm so freaking angry to the point that I basically have this crazy anger fantasy where I hope someone drags them out of their beds at night, lines them up in front of their home and shoots them... with the vaccine. I think this, and then I feel kinda embarrassed for thinking this.

Now, I am of the stance that in a state of emergency, citizens may have to suspend their rights to ensure decisive action. So to answer the question in OP: Yes. Individual rights should be allowed to be suspended to improve successful responses during an emergency.

But I'll also say that once citizens have accepted their responsibility to have their rights suspended to improve the emergency response, a citizen should not perceive they need not contribute further responsibility to further improve successful outcomes of an emergency situation.

Not the most historically accurate source, but in the Dark Knight, Harvey Dent (at dinner) mentions that when the enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. It wasn't honor, it was a public service. In our case, the enemy is Covid. However, I feel that many have mistaken the enemy for each other with a dissenting opinions on whether Covid meets the definition of "an enemy" worth suspending our rights for.

Covid hasn't opened up a new view of a debate relating to rights. It has merely helped many to focus the magnifying glass on the topic of rights that has existed for quite a while now. A few years ago, there was an open debate about the responsibilities that comes with the rights we enjoy. There was lots of lamenting regarding the tepid interest in voting. There was lamenting about the complaints people had regarding the emergency broadcasts/amber alerts that "woke them up" and demands from some individuals for the ability to disable it (ie: Elect out of their responsibility to share awareness) which was denied.


There are times where the government is required to overrule the freedoms of individuals for the common good. The vast majority has perceived that Covid meets the requirements for a reason to invoke that power. A vocal minority has perceived that Covid does not meet that requirement to invoke that power. To simplify it, the reasoning for or against doesn't really matter as it doesn't change the end result.

But a choice must be made. There really isn't an effective choice that is a combination of both. Those that define Covid as an appropriate reason to invoke a state of emergency will likely agree to giving the government the power to be decisive by suspending their freedoms as part of their responsibility.

It seems the minority who do not define Covid as an appropriate reason may not be able to sustain such an opinion without facing repercussions from a mostly majority supported government decision, or via confrontation from the majority who have the dissenting opinion.
I wanted to add on that the key point of the story wasn't the appointing of a defender and the honor of public service. But that the and I'm going off of memory, the last one appointed himself as Cesar and didn't give up his powers.

That's a large part of this debate, is it ok to suspend rights in the face of a crisis if there's no solid mechanism to remove those power when the crisis abides. We've seen it in the fictional world (ie Star Wars, you knew I would go there, with Palpatine gaining emergency powers and not giving them up when Dooku and Grievous were dead).

The other part of the debate with the current climate. We know the path to reducing the waves, especially with the possibility of varients is vaccines. So would the government be wrong in either rounding up and isolating people that refuse to get the vaccines and leaving them there til they agree to get a vaccines? Does this suspend the my body my choice right, and what happens if after the government does this, vaccinates everything possible and there's no mechanism for removal, can that law be simply twisted with no recourse.

I mean the argument of doing something like this is that you would hope that the courts would protect our guaranteed rights, but if the government gains the ability through government decree, does it realistically abolish the courts ability to strike it down, if the government can prove an ongoing continuous emergency.

We'll Covid is gone, but now there's the threat of whatever which is kind of the same thing, so we have direct control over the fates of a certain group of people.

I'm not writing this as a conspiracy theory, I'm writing this from a standpoint of diving deeper into the idea of how far can the government go.
__________________
You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn’t get you anywhere. Talk about your psalms, talk about John 3:16…
Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2021, 10:02 PM   #74
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
I wanted to add on that the key point of the story wasn't the appointing of a defender and the honor of public service. But that the and I'm going off of memory, the last one appointed himself as Cesar and didn't give up his powers.

That's a large part of this debate, is it ok to suspend rights in the face of a crisis if there's no solid mechanism to remove those power when the crisis abides. We've seen it in the fictional world (ie Star Wars, you knew I would go there, with Palpatine gaining emergency powers and not giving them up when Dooku and Grievous were dead).

The other part of the debate with the current climate. We know the path to reducing the waves, especially with the possibility of varients is vaccines. So would the government be wrong in either rounding up and isolating people that refuse to get the vaccines and leaving them there til they agree to get a vaccines? Does this suspend the my body my choice right, and what happens if after the government does this, vaccinates everything possible and there's no mechanism for removal, can that law be simply twisted with no recourse.

I mean the argument of doing something like this is that you would hope that the courts would protect our guaranteed rights, but if the government gains the ability through government decree, does it realistically abolish the courts ability to strike it down, if the government can prove an ongoing continuous emergency.

We'll Covid is gone, but now there's the threat of whatever which is kind of the same thing, so we have direct control over the fates of a certain group of people.

I'm not writing this as a conspiracy theory, I'm writing this from a standpoint of diving deeper into the idea of how far can the government go.
I'm going to push back a little on this. No one is being forced to get the vaccine. There's far to much belief that freedom means freedom from repercussions on the decisions we make. You're free to deny the vaccine if your job depends on you getting it, but that doesn't mean you're free from repercussions. Nowhere in our charter of rights and freedoms does it say the government can't ensure safety in a restaurant. I would agree there's some grey area with freedom of assembly, but restrictions on patronage of business has always been regulated based on safety and this is a slope that just ain't slippery

Same with "cancel culture". Complain about the asymmetrical response with social media gangs is fine, but don't claim censorship when you say things that are bound to elicit the response you're asking for.

Freedom means freedom to do as you please, but not without consequence.
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Old 09-21-2021, 01:46 PM   #75
Mathgod
First Line Centre
 
Mathgod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald View Post
"The needs of the many outweigh the luxuries & conveniences of the few."
Improved your post.
__________________
Just for fun, let's say Beijing magically reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero. That would reduce global emissions by less than 1%! What's the point? So good news, Beijing! Your residents no longer have any ethical or moral duty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions! Rinse and repeat as may be convenient for whichever political unit you live in! ()
Mathgod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2021, 02:03 PM   #76
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Thanks for all of your opinions and debating points here. I really enjoyed it. There will be a new topic this week for you guys to play with.
__________________
You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn’t get you anywhere. Talk about your psalms, talk about John 3:16…
Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2021, 02:05 PM   #77
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
Thanks for all of your opinions and debating points here. I really enjoyed it. There will be a new topic this week for you guys to play with.
Is it cats v dogs?
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2021, 02:17 PM   #78
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Well . . . . errrrr . . . . no, but its on the list.
__________________
You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn’t get you anywhere. Talk about your psalms, talk about John 3:16…
Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 09-25-2021, 06:32 PM   #79
Textcritic
Acerbic Cyberbully
 
Textcritic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
Exp:
Default

So, is there another debate topic this week?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
"The Lying Pen of Scribes" Ancient Manuscript Forgeries Project
Textcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2021, 06:35 PM   #80
Cecil Terwilliger
That Crazy Guy at the Bus Stop
 
Cecil Terwilliger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Springfield Penitentiary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic View Post
So, is there another debate topic this week?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
We should start a thread where people can chime in with their opinions, pros and cons to decide if we want another topic. I feel that kind of dialogue would be helpful in making a decision. We could, you know, debate the merits of a new topic.
Cecil Terwilliger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Calgary Flames
2021-22




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021