• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for the Federal Public Service and RCMP

  • Thread starter Thread starter QV
  • Start date Start date

Do you support mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for federal public servants and RCMP?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 72.4%
  • No

    Votes: 19 25.0%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
. . . does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.

Sounds like war.

. . . otherwise they wouldn't have demanded legal protection in case something happens. . . .

And that is nothing new in the case of vaccines. While Canada may not have (or had, I wasn't bothered with doing a deep dive on related legislation) a specific law in place that indemnifies vaccine producers from liability, the contractual arrangements for procuring vaccines will usually include an indemnity clause (the manufacturers request and the government agrees because they know that is the only way the system will work). It didn't start with Covid-19 vaccines; if one looked into it the same would be true for the annual flu vaccine, the many immunizations that every child gets (or at least the children with sensible parents - my bias is showing) and even some of the one off, special authorization vaccines that soldiers have been occasionally jabbed with (I know - I had a copy of the contract on my desk before getting the jab). However, this pandemic may have been the good kick in the arse that the Canadian Government needed to institute (like a lot of countries) a more formal arrangement for a "pan-Canadian Vaccine Injury Support Program".
 
You notice that the FDA EUA still covers Pfizer original vaccine which grants it the immunity. However that immunity does not cover their newly released name brand of the vaccine. It will be interesting to see which version the company produces?

Meanwhile a little humour helps

244496760_4480409632013620_8331128235763920672_n.png
 
. Public health does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.
Sounds a lot like democracy....
 
None of us have any idea about the long term benefits or side effects of this vaccine and clearly the manufacturer didn't either, otherwise they wouldn't have demanded legal protection in case something happens. There is a particular treatment for women that was promoted years ago by the medical profession that only showed up with bad side effect 30 years later. Public health does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.
I hear that dying of COVID is a pretty bad long-term side effect, so there’s that.
 
None of us have any idea about the long term benefits or side effects of this vaccine and clearly the manufacturer didn't either, otherwise they wouldn't have demanded legal protection in case something happens. There is a particular treatment for women that was promoted years ago by the medical profession that only showed up with bad side effect 30 years later. Public health does not care about the individual, just the masses, so they will promote something even if a percentage of the population suffers, if there is a benefit to the majority.
Not sure where you get 30 years from... "In Canada, the history of thalidomide dates back to April 1, 1961. There were many different forms sold, with the most common variant being called Talimol.[41] Two months after Talimol went on sale, pharmaceutical companies sent physicians letters warning about the risk of birth defects.[41] It was not until March 2, 1962, that both drugs were banned from the Canadian market by the FDD and, soon afterward, physicians were warned to destroy their supplies.[41]". It was known quite early, but unfortunately
 
No this is another treatment for women, that my wife was telling me about, I get the details later
 
Not sure where you get 30 years from... "In Canada, the history of thalidomide dates back to April 1, 1961. There were many different forms sold, with the most common variant being called Talimol.[41] Two months after Talimol went on sale, pharmaceutical companies sent physicians letters warning about the risk of birth defects.[41] It was not until March 2, 1962, that both drugs were banned from the Canadian market by the FDD and, soon afterward, physicians were warned to destroy their supplies.[41]". It was known quite early, but unfortunately

What makes you think he was referring to Thalidomide? I thought it was transvaginal mesh.
 
What makes you think he was referring to Thalidomide? I thought it was transvaginal mesh.
From the phrasing, that would be my guess. Plus what you are talking about is not banned, as far as I can tell. There are side effects, like any procedure, but it is not banned. I could be wrong. Though the only person that knows is the poster.
 
From the phrasing, that would be my guess. Plus what you are talking about is not banned, as far as I can tell. There are side effects, like any procedure, but it is not banned. I could be wrong. Though the only person that knows is the poster.

And neither is Thalidomide "banned". It is still used, just not for the purpose that led to the tragedies of the early sixties. In most cases, drugs or other medical items that have late discovered adverse side effects are not banned, but removed from the marketplace by the manufacturer, either due to reduced demand or as a business decision when the cost of defending the product outweighs its profitability profile. My supposition that he was referring to mesh was a first thought, it could easily have been Accutane. There's probably a few others that could come to mind, or would if I was bothered to do a little research.

The example he used is inconsequential. The point, I think, that he was trying to make is that drug manufacturers (vaccine makers specifically) do not care about potential long term effects as long as they can turn a profit and not be sued. Well, duh! They are, first and foremost, a business. If they don't make a profit they don't remain in business. As I previously noted, it is common practice for vaccine manufacturers to be "somewhat" shielded from legal action. Why would it be in the public interest to provide such limited protection to vaccine manufacturers? To quote from a 2018 report - Designing a No-Fault Vaccine-Injury Compensation Programme for Canada: Lessons Learned from an International Analysis of Programmes - "(it) help(s) to stimulate vaccine innovation and manufacturing thereby keeping the costs of vaccines low for public programmes".

Utility of a no-fault approach

Since the injuries related to vaccines generally occur despite best practices in both manufacturing and delivery, injured parties in Canada cannot use negligence to establish fault (Kutsela 2004; Manitoba Law Reform Commission 2000; Peppin 2005). In addition, most vaccine-related injuries are idiosyncratic in nature making it nearly impossible to predict who might have a serious adverse event (Institute of Medicine 1985; Jacobson et al. 2001). Though there have been many Canadian vaccine injury cases tried over the past few decades in Canadian courts, because of these features of vaccine injury there has not been a single successful vaccine injury case in Canada (Manitoba Law Reform Commission 2000). This has led several of the presiding judges in these cases to include in their judgments an acknowledgement of the unfairness of a legal system that lacks the mechanism to provide compensation in cases where people are clearly injured while participating in a public good (see for example Morgan v City of Toronto).

. . .

No-fault compensation programmes move vaccine injury cases out of the tort arena into a publicly
administered or regulated programme saving vaccine manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars in
legal fees, help to stimulate vaccine innovation and manufacturing thereby keeping the costs of vaccines
low for public programmes
(Evans 2006).

And from south of the border (also 2018 - predating the pandemic)

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Protecting Vaccine Makers from State Lawsuits​


The United States Supreme Court reached a decision recently, concluding that federal law protects vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits that are filed in state courts and seek damages for injuries or death attributed to a vaccine.

In the 57-page opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court explained that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA or Act) preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects
 
I saw that link posted elsewhere yesterday, and can point out one massive error, the CAF is definitely included in the vaccine mandate. A message from the A/CDS and DM was sent to all DWAN/O365 accounts about it on Friday, telling us we have until the 29th to complete our attestation form.
 
No, it's not. If you read down in the email spam, it links to the TB Policy and the CAF is clearly labeled as an exlcusion. CAF members have their own administration system that's very different from a civilian public servant so if the CAF ia going to make a rule it will have to leverage those policies not the PS ones.
 
The TBS policy is only one component of the federal mandate. So yes, CAF is included in the mandate, through its own directives. No, it is not included in the TBS policy- but it doesn't need to be. It is fully within the authority of the CDS to order his own equivalent to this for the purpose of achieving the federal policy objective.
 
No, it's not. If you read down in the email spam, it links to the TB Policy and the CAF is clearly labeled as an exlcusion. CAF members have their own administration system that's very different from a civilian public servant so if the CAF ia going to make a rule it will have to leverage those policies not the PS ones.
While the data presented may be factually correct WRT the TB policy, it is presented out of context, in such a way that it is giving a false idea to viewers. That's either an error, or an intentional decision to inflame people in order to generate views/shares.
 
If the mandates do not survive challenge, I would expect to see Work Refusals from vaccinated employees refusing to be cooped up - say in an aircraft cockpit or car - with an unvaccinated co-worker.

Can you refuse to work along side an unvaccinated person?
Why? Are the vaccines so bad? I thought people got the vaccine because they are everything that was promised.

You notice that the FDA EUA still covers Pfizer original vaccine which grants it the immunity. However that immunity does not cover their newly released name brand of the vaccine. It will be interesting to see which version the company produces?
You would be correct if you think none of the FDA approved version of Pfizer is available in the US. Only the EUA version (they are exactly the same, but if you take the EUA version, they have the complete immunity. I'm still unclear if in the US you can still get any compensation for side effect of fully FDA approved vaccines, I haven't done the research on that).

Call yourself and ask where the fully FDA approved version can be found in US

18008793477

 
Last edited:
Why? Are the vaccines so bad?
Who said they were?

As far as Work Refusals go, my former employer will suspend unvaccinated employees on 1 Nov., and terminate them on 13 Dec.

So, Work Refusals there would seem unlikely.

YMMV depending on workplace.

 
The TBS policy is only one component of the federal mandate. So yes, CAF is included in the mandate, through its own directives. No, it is not included in the TBS policy- but it doesn't need to be. It is fully within the authority of the CDS to order his own equivalent to this for the purpose of achieving the federal policy objective.
Indeed. The NDA already has provision for refusing a vaccine (s. 126). We'll see how refusals are applied now. LWOP then release, or charge, found guilty (pretty easy as it's pretty straight forward although we could dispute the 'reasonable excuse'), and then released? There's probably an intent not to surcharge the military justice system as well.

NDA, s. 126:
Refusing immunization, tests, blood examination or treatment

126 Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, re-vaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, wilfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.
 
Back
Top