57 Comments

I just don't get it. I really don't. Why is everybody acting as if there are only two positions here; either you support vaccine mandates or you are an anti-vaxxer who puts everybody's children at risk.

Has nobody actually ever read the vaccine approvals, or the monographs, or understands how science works, or how risk management works, or checked the risk mitigation plan for the vaccines?

Let's start with the "won't somebody think of the children" aspect. According to GoC Epidemiological Update, as of Aug 27, 2021, page 25, the total number of deaths for people aged 0-19 is 16 people in over 18 months, or about a rate of 10 per year. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/src/data/covidLive/Epidemiological-summary-of-COVID-19-cases-in-Canada-Canada.ca.pdf

By way of comparison, several hundred are killed per year in car accidents and 50-60 die by drowning. Hospitalizations show similar comparison rates.

Or even in adults. What is the probability and size of harm to a vaccinated person from a random unvaccinated person, especially if the unvaccinated person has been screened by other methods? How does it compare to other regular risks we accept?

Heck, the literature strongly suggests that prior COVID-19 patients have much stronger immunity and duration than the vaccines. They are less of a risk, even unvaccinated, than a vaccinated person. Yet we treat them like they are high risk?

OK, but wouldn't it be better to vaccinate them anyway, to eliminate those 10 or so? What's the harm? Read the damn monographs. E.g., Moderna monograph, Section 7.1:

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf#page=8

"The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna in pregnant women have not yet been

established. ... It is unknown if COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/ infants cannot be excluded."

Or the approvals, e.g., Moderna: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatory-decision-summary-detailTwo.html?linkID=RDS00736

"One limitation of the data at this time is the lack of information on the long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The identified limitations are managed through labelling and the Risk Management Plan. The Phase 3 Study is ongoing and will continue to collect information on the long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine.”

Labeling means the risk is managed by informed consent of the patient. It diversifies the risk. The Risk Management Plan monitors outcomes after the fact and updates the monographs, so that future vaccinators can make up-to-date informed consent to take the risk.

Trudeau is eliminating all risk mitigation completely. He is confusing absence of evidence of harm with evidence of absence of harm. He is confusing the overall approval risk-benefit tradeoffs so that people *can* take the vaccines with the individual case-by-case risk-benefit calculations in which they decide if they *should* take the vaccines.

These are classic errors in risk management that brought down two space shuttles, heavily contributed to Chernobyl, and caused the Thalidomide tragedy, except in the U.S. where Canadian Frances Kelsey withheld approval because the absence of evidence of harms, and even some evidence of absence of harms in rats, was not enough and she required long-term safety testing. She saved many American babies. Sadly, Canada approved Thalidomide in 1961.

I haven't even touched on rights, or alternative methods for comparison, of which there are many issues. There's also the underlying Trolley problem in moral philosophy of putting younger people at potentially longer risk with less benefit, all to save older people. There's also a game theoretic Prisoners Dilemma social game here that remains undiscussed.

And, I'm double-vaccinate and recommend them to almost everybody. But I also recognize that we're all taking a chance here, and there is significant risk mitigation value in allowing people to decide for themselves.

I don't get why the press doesn't actually read the approvals and monographs, or understand the unknown long-term risks, or the short-term risks, and doesn't do the math or propose alternative solutions.

For example, a young woman with prior COVID infection and immunity, working remotely in an are with low count, may well be better off to go last; meaning wait until everybody else gets vaccinated and wait until more data comes in. There doesn't seem to be any net benefit to her and it's all risk.

So many highly intellectual and professional reasons to object, and yet even critics in the media, like here, just focus on it being stupid people and whether or not they have the right to be stupid.

I'm disappointed in the press as a whole here. And politicians. Do better jobs. Read and understand the materials. Understand how risk works, and how to mitigate it. Do the math. Stop being lazy and single-minded.

Read more here: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/a-canadian-behavioral-study-of-obedience

Expand full comment

I replied to this post with the following email:

Thank you for posting this, specifically the part about vaccine mandates. I have now become a paying subscriber on account of it.

While I disagree with you in part (there is pretty compelling evidence that people who have already recovered from Covid do not benefit themselves or society from then getting vaccinated, which would also expose them to risk from non-trivial side effects), this disagreement pales in comparison to the points on which we agree. I see these as being that people have a fundamental right in a free society to non-violently protest; and that these vaccine mandates are in fact a massive infringement on people's freedom and personal autonomy, to which people can legitimately object. I notice that you don't come right out and say that this infringement is actually unjustified, but the way you describe the mandates makes it clear that you don't support them, and that you are uncomfortable with the Liberal campaign's attempts to whip up and benefit from anger or hatred against the unvaccinated.

The most important thing of all is that you see the unvaccinated as fellow humans and fellow Canadians who have some rights and deserve not to be unreasonably vilified and oppressed. That in itself sets you apart from most journalists (and quite possibly Canadians) right now, and is enough to make me want to support you and consider you a friend.

Expand full comment

The unvaccinated are putting others at harm - kids who can’t be vaccinated, and the people who need access to health care services that are instead being used to treat preventable cases of COVID. If not for those effects, I really would say to hell with them, it’s on their heads.

These vaccine mandates are being misconstrued as compelling people to take a vaccine. They’re not - it’s shifting the burden of COVID mitigations onto those who’ve taken a completely unreasonable position of refusing a vaccine in the face of overwhelming evidence that it works and is safe. This isn’t novel, nor is it unreasonable. If you had TB, you’d similarly be prevented from participating in public life until you’re treated.

Expand full comment

So 80% of us are vaccinated. What was the point if the 20% can somehow put us all in harms way? How does that change if we are at 90%? Aren't we already at the "herd immunity" rate? If the vaccinated can get and pass on COVID is the vaccine just to lessen the severity? Since I'm vaccinated why should I care if there is a mandate forcing others, passports or other reductions in personal liberties?

Expand full comment

Another good read. A couple of things.

I admire your commitment to logic in the face of its apparent absence. As in, pols should "pick a lane". If pols were submitting their public announcements to a university prof as an essay to be evaluated. Yup, bang on.

But if a pol is making public announcements speaking to a highly segmented public seeking to net the biggest catch of fish, then perhaps not so much. If the announcement strategy is based upon the notion that 'folks hear what they want to hear', then double, triple, quadro-speak may serve the purpose. In the din of cross-talking talking points, each voter picks what they want to hear as important to them. Running a multi-lane campaign may net the most fish. Ouch, sorry for the mixed meta-four-lane traffic jam-boree ; )

I realize there is a tension between merely winning an election and putting forth a sound agenda for dealing with reality. Winning an election is a Pyrrhic victory if you lose the negotiation with reality. Chretien, I believe, observed, first, 'you have to win!' Suggesting that winning and governing are significantly different tasks, raising fundamental questions, of course, about democratic societies.

As for freedom in a liberal democratic society.

Absolutes are for demagogues. Liberal democracies are by nature flexible. Voters are free to choose. Free to disagree with themselves the next time around. So for the balance between freedom and restrictions, it's often a moving goal post based on context. Think smoking, seat belts, helmets, alcohol limits, etc.

A pandemic in peacetime is possibly an approximation of wartime with regard to a shifting balance of freedom-vs-restrictions. Furthermore, freedom of speech should not be confused with the freedom to physically threaten others.

So while I would agree Trudeau could have waited until spring to call an election (post-fourth, pre-fifth, waves?) and the Libs came out of the gate looking bewilderingly bewildered for an election campaign they had the freedom to plan and call. Nevertheless, regarding finding public support for where the balance between freedom and restriction should be in the context of a pandemic, an election in a liberal democratic society may be the best way to test the public mood for where that balance point should fall.

So vaccine mandates, passports, restrictions and penalties, seems like just the big ticket liberal democratic ballot question to justify an election. Even if the Libs & other pols only discover it halfway through a campaign based upon the liberal democratic opposition showing up at public rallies and voicing their mood in frantic shrieks of frenzied insanity.

Sometimes it takes a few missteps for a liberal democratic society to find its footing (think the shift from hoarding toilet paper to getting vaccinated), but in the long run, liberal democratic societies remain more sure-footed than their authoritarian alternatives.

So bring on the public performances, the public spectacles, restricted or not, and let the liberal democratic public exercise its will in a free, fair and open election. Amidst, of course, the noise and din of an ever-shifting reality.

Thanks.

Expand full comment

FIRST: conflation of two groups that are quite distinct;

Jen is careful to not explicitly state that there are only two groups in conflict, vaxxed/unvaxxed, but she sure implies it by omission. There are, of course, two separate kinds of unvaccinated:

1) Unvaccinated because their parents haven't taken them (lower rates for 12-17);

OR they haven't bothered yet because they feel little personal fear, and are averse to that probable day-o-feeling-crappy (even lower rates, 18-29);

OR because of genuine hesitation, even fear (often from disinformation)

2) Actual ANTI-Vaxxers, are against the whole idea

1) the genuine-fear people deserve the compassion and stuff

2) deserve the ...um...mean comments... that Trudeau dispensed.

So you can "have it both ways" as long as you don't conflate genuine-concerners with anti-vaxxers. (Like this article).

SECOND, Jen makes a huge leap, assuming that the reason for anti-vaxxers screaming truly sick insults is because they are beleagured by the restrictions to their activities. I'm not making a huge leap to assume they have a near 100% overlap with anti-maskers, because in my Facebook feed, it's an exact 100% of the high-school classmates in question. Anti-maskers developed the same level of spitting, crazed-insult anger over wearing a strip of cloth. It's not the degree of restriction, it's any request for unselfish behaviour at all.

It's good of Jen to stick up for Free Speech Rights, of course, but she's assisting with a shuck. If TheLine wants to "reject bullshit", it could reject the bullshit that this is "just free speech". The "speech" uses insults so emotional (fascist/Nazi/tyrant/traitor) that the hearer should have concern that violence may actually break out (as indeed anti-maskers have offered violence to merchants already). That's the old fascist/Trump schtick, to use speech so extreme it borders on "active speech" (we used to call them "Fighting Words") that can cause liability, but then demurely claim to only be defending "speech", when they're defending a right to bully.

The tactic should be criticized, not defended. Readers are invited to listen to restauranteer Jen Agg on Canadaland, she's recorded some of the people harassing and intimidating her customers, until she had to pull celebrity strings on Twitter to get the police to do their damn job and hold them back to a decent distance.

Expand full comment

A few ramblings:

1) The unvaccinated are threats for only 2 reasons: i) infecting others who could be vaccinated but aren't, ii) overloading the healthcare system which impacts others' ability to access treatment, and wastes money

2) The vulnerable who can't be vaccinated are going to be at risk no matter what. Other strategies are needed

3) Extensive data exists on the low probability of severe COVID outcomes in children under 12. This raises the bar very high for vaccine approval in that the probability of severe side-effects needs to be demonstrably lower than the already very low probability of servere symptoms. The prospective benefit of vaccinating children to reduce spread is not a consideration in the approval process

4) The threat of vaccine passports may drive higher vaccination rates, but that is the only benefit they might provide. See point 1 above

5) The ability of government to execute vaccine passports is very low: i)how soon could it provide a secure and transferable (acceptable at least across Canada, and ideally internationally) form of ID akin to a Drivers License, ii) private businesses would need to enforce whether their customers have the right "papers", placing them in line customer wrath and potentially offside with privacy legislation, iii) what expiry would such passport carry given the uncertain length of immunity conferred by vaccination

6) I won't believe that vaccine mandates are real until government fires some of its own employees with cause (aka no severance) for non-compliance. Won't happen

7) Restrictions like mask mandates and lockdowns only level the load of COVID patients on the health care system. They temporarily beat down cases, which reemerge when restrictions lift. Prolonged restrictions might be a gameplan if some new treatment or improved vaccine were on the horizon, but that is certainly not the case

8) Covid is endemic and will never go away. Society needs to accept that the risks can only be minimized

Expand full comment

Quick Numerical Nitpick:

83.5% of the over-12 population is vaccinated, but the non-electoral 12-17 cohort is one of the lowest rates, so it's almost 85% of the electorate that are vaccinated.

I have demonstrated a 0.985 correlation coeffcient between the Canadian vaccination rates by age, and that group's probability of dying if they get covid: http://brander.ca/c19#vaxvsmort

...or, for a less nerdy proof: over 95% of those over 70 are all vaccinated, despite that age-group trending much more conservative, as virtually all anti-vaxxers are politically conservative. This strongly indicates the actual popularity of anti-vax views are under 5% of the population.

Expand full comment

While it is true that idiots do have a certain right to be idiotic, the line draws at endangering the vulnerable. Idiocy is not without its repercussions.

That is where we are at. It is highly anecdotal, yet there is a palpable anger in those of us who are vaccinated. In numerous conversations, unprompted by me, the subject has been raised with bitter condemnation of the antivax movement. The vitriol is being driven in these conversations by the perceived risk of limitations imposed despite doing the things we have been asked.

It may be the wedge issue that works when O'Toole's stance is vaccines are good but a matter of choice.

Similarly the Texas threat is also surfacing with the anti-abortion law passed this week. Despite O'Toole's assurances, over half of sitting CPC MPs have voted against banning conversion therapy and opening the abortion debate in two separate votes. Like it or not, it's now a topic. At least that is what twitter tells me.

As for the mid campaign doldrums, I think I was there the day the writ dropped ... however

- Justin Trudeau's refusal to dump Saini is gob smackingly dumb

- Anime Paul's endorsement of the Liberal environment plan is head-shakingly simple

- Jagmeet Singh's providing a showcase for indigneous leaders to endorse a Liberal at his rally is eyerollingly wtf'ery

- And then Erin O'Toole's balance the budget in 10 years without cutting services or raise taxes eerily reminiscent of someone else's cavelierly shoulder shrugging magic moment

It is true that campaigns matter, it is also try that the are so infinitely trivial.

PS Jenn and Matt, more of the youtube interplay between you, please.

_

Expand full comment

Great article but you've got to keep up with today's progressive lingo. According to Merriam Webster, anti-vaxxer is someone who not only opposes vaccination, but also laws that mandate vaccination. Now, I am all for vaccinations (got my covid shots so now I'm one of the 'good' people....I'm hoping the sarcasm comes through) but I do NOT believe in forced vaccinations. So, I guess I'm an anti-vaxxer....

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

Expand full comment