January 24th, 2022

Kenney letting anti-vaxxers win


By Lethbridge Herald on January 12, 2022.

Editor:

Your headline “Kenney renews promise that Alberta will not mandate vaccinations” should actually read: “Kenney renews promise that COVID will continue.”

 What Kenney is actually saying is not so much that the choice to vaccinate is personal choice. 

Instead, his real message is “anti-vaxxers win, our health care workers are not worth protecting, and our seniors are expendable. Kids – good luck with school – you will need it!”. What a guy! And to think that he is our premier! 

Leslie Lavers

Lethbridge

Share this story:

6
Subscribe
Notify of
19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
old school

How many people with with vaccines countless times over,get and spread covid?
Those stats should be an eye opener for sheeple like Leslie.It is definitely not the fact that a few people are vaccine free.

TJohnston

Late last week, according to AHS data, there were 65 people in ICUs across the province. Of that number, 72% were not vaccinated, despite the fact that the percentage of Albertans who remain “vaccine free”, to use your term, is around 27%. Proportions tell a very different story than the absolute numbers do.

biff

not saying do not vax – i am saying it must be a choice, and to be a choice, choice must be without coercion. here is another set of numbers: 280+ million covid cases worldwide (so, including nations that are poor and already overrun with masses made unhealthy by poverty and hunger and without much to any health care – quite in contrast to our “overstrained” health care), 5.5 million deaths, over years. the recovery rate is overwhelmingly higher than the death rate. over 2 years a fraction of the planet’s human pop has been determined to have/have had covid, and a very tiny fraction of those infected have died. have the vaxes helped? yes, either directly or due to the placebo effect. however, seeing as the vast majority of cases results in recovery, and seeing as how most cases prior to omicron were among the unvaxed, the great recovery had little to nothing to do with vaxes.
the unvaxed in our land exercised their right to choose for their body. in contrast, far too many of the vaxed chose to support every move by govts that undermined that right. that mob of herd mentality has consequently undermined that right for themselves, too. and over a virus that has a minuscule kill rate, no less. looks to me that any new laws deeming to “save our health care,” no matter how intrusive and restrictive, will be upheld with usual babble by our supreme court as being “acceptable limits on our rights freedoms” – even as such laws will enter into the realm that should be an inalienable right to our body.

Southern Albertan

Not mandate vaccinations? There is the thought, though, of bringing back Alberta Health Care Premiums, for everyone, since this pandemic has been so financially costly and fossil fuel income has lessened and there is also the ongoing expensive treatment for heart disease, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, etc. The premiums were cancelled in the Stelmach years when things were booming. As health care professionals have been saying, the anti-vaxxers are not anti-treatment, and accepting any number of expensive drugs/medications/treatments administered when lives are on the line.
Also, according to the front lines, there are now so many hospital/ICU admissions, keeping up may be in jeopardy. We’re being told by the MOH Hinshaw to multiply actual presented COVID numbers by tenfold. What will it take? A complete COVID disaster? And the expensive financial and human cost of COVID long haul aftereffects?
It’s all rosy cake and pie until, one, or, a loved one happens to suffer a COVID negative effect including death, and then it’s the “Oh, I didn’t think it would happen to me/us,” realization.

biff

a great example of how easy it is to condition the masses is this letter. it is appalling how the powers that be have been able to stoke fear and get the masses to not only back into their cages of security, but to actually run in willingly. the authoritarian movement must be even more surprised than they are happy at how easy the masses rolled over and bought in. the consent by the too many to give away one of the most important and fundamental pillars that would otherwise uphold our rights and freedoms – the right to own one’s body – has indeed ushered in yet another new abnormal. worse still, to give up so much over a “pandemic” as mushy as covid is near as funny as it is frightening.

TJohnston

According to the International Dictionary of Epidemiology, which is published by Oxford University Press, a pandemic is “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very large area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”.

biff

fair enough. thus, any “disease” can be deemed a pandemic so long as it has a wide spread, but regardless of whether the epidemic in question poses a serious threat to the many?

biff

mind you, we are now moving away from the issues i have been concerned with. we each must have the sole right to our body. it is fair and reasonable that person chooses to not vax; they are not a threat to the vaxed, who in choosing to vax and presuming the vax works, are not at risk by an unvaxed. if the unvaxed are more likely to get sick, that is their fee choice. the unvaxed are a threat to one another, and in not vaxing they have given their consent to be more at risk. and the risk is incredibly low. moreover, for some, such as myself, i am entirely opposed to torturing animals for any reason. there is nothing that will make me take pharma products – nothing. bad pharm is bad karma. my revulsion around the forced pain and suffering of pharm’s animals is greater than is my fear of death.

TJohnston

To clarify: when you say “we each must have the sole right to our body”, is that limited to what we put into our body, or do you extend that principle to the manner in which our bodies occupy and move through space (and I don’t mean outer space)?

biff

what we ingest or do not must be entirely the choice of each. in terms of our actions and movements, we must accept that the right of each ends at the body of another; as well, the right of another ends at the body of each. there is a difference to what is fair and reasonable, such as not vaxing and being free to be in public spaces as are vaxed, and what is not fair and reasonable, such as knowingly choosing to spread an illness.

TJohnston

When the state, through the courts, sends a person to prison — which will restrict that person’s movements — that constitutes over reach?

biff

where the law is just and reasonable, and where the process and consequences are just and reasonable, then prison may be a fair and reasonable option (although, our prisons are of themselves not fair and reasonable; for example, prisoners are entitled to protection and a fair measure of dignity, neither of which is always upheld in prison). i have said all along that we must respect the rights of one another. as noted a very many times, the rights of one end at the body of another.

TJohnston

ah, so the “inalienable rights”, of which you have so often opined, can be constrained, but the test is that of “reasonableness”.
And what about when the rights of one person impinge on the rights of another? Whose rights trump whose and how do we decide that question?

biff

we begin from the right of a person to be the sole arbiter of their body. my right to blow smoke in your face is unreasonable and violates your right to breathe freely. my right to inhale smoke must be limited such that enough distance is created so as to respect your right. however, if there was some sort of smoke that when blown in the face of another made that other person healthier, it would not mean that we each are mandated to blow smoke at another. that would infringe upon one’s right to not ingest smoke, even though it were beneficial to the other to receive the smoke blown. the other, in such a case, would have to look elsewhere to get blown, so to speak.
in the case of coerced/forced vaxing, the right to one’s body is not respected. it is reasonable to expect that people will be affected by viruses; however, one does not have a right to knowingly spread a virus, at least a potentially serious virus. thus, to have sex knowing you have aids, for example, and to not inform the consenting partner(s), the action may be an offense. if one has measles, or covid, and knows they are sick, it is an offense to not quarantine until no longer contagious.
meanwhile, people have the choice to take precautions so as to minimise their risk of getting anything, such as masking, distancing, vaxing, looking after their health with regard to waist size, exercise/activity, diet and so forth. for many vaxing is a most effective choice to protect from some viruses. for others, vaxing is not their choice. one choosing to not vax may be more at risk, but that is their rightful choice as sole arbiter of their body.
one’s right to their body trumps one’s right to expect another to take something that body does not wish to take. it is why we cannot legislate that we each donate extra organs (i would argue it should be automatic with dead bodies, unless save where a body has registered for an exception based on religion or conscience).

Last edited 11 days ago by biff
Elohssa Gib

“biff”, you’ve been walked into a logical cul-de-sac.

biff

your entries always express opinion but typically come without explanation and support. they are as hollow as those mining the neg icon. if you have a basis for your statement, please explain; are you able to do so?
meanwhile, you can let govt tell you what you must ingest, and not ingest. that is your choice, as it is your body. i will continue to wish the best to the so very many that place blind trust in pharma and govt: may there not be a massive health fallout over the longer term from the covid vaxes. i will continue to make decisions about my body without govt intrusion. i will continue to reject animal torture for any reason.
bad pharma is bad karma.

Citi Zen

Is it really about letting the anti-vaxxers win? Let nature takes its course, cull the herd.

phlushie

why do we carry on. the pandemic in Alberta was officially, but not announced, over December 15, 2021. But wait, the laws have been changed to allow these DRACONIAN measures to be carried on at the whim of politicians with the passing of Bill C-2.

Last edited 11 days ago by phlushie
biff

cull? with so very few dying relative to the number of covid infected, hardly a dent.



19
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x