1) Common themes in this @OntHumanRights statement:
- "protect people at work"
- "collectively protect the general public"
- "collective rights to health and safety"
- "unless it would significantly interfere with people’s health and safety"
- "public health and safety"
- "would significantly compromise health and safety"
2/...
Their (and the government's) ENTIRE justification for vaccine mandates is that the unvaccinated pose a risk to the health & safety of others.
This however is steeped in logical fallacies.
3/...
2) On July 30th, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky clarified the facts about the vaccine & the Delta variant (the dominant variant AND reason for the mandates):
"...Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people...
4/...
...High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus." cdc.gov/media/releases…
5/...
Aka...the VACCINATED have the SAME CAPACITY TO TRANSMIT the virus as the unvaccinated.
Aka...THIS vaccine does NOT protect others. It instead only (moderately) protects the person that was vaccinated.
6/...
Aka...the vaccinated pose the SAME risk to the health & safety of others.
These facts have NOT changed.
In fact, they have been further validated on an ongoing basis since.
7/...
3) According to Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for "reasonable limits" to actually be considered reasonable - the onus is on the gov't to demonstrate that they are "demonstrably justified".
8/...
" 'Demonstrably justified' connotes a strong evidentiary foundation. Cogent and persuasive evidence is generally required"
"Where scientific or social science evidence is available, it will be required" justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rf…
9/...
4) As viral load & transmission are INDEPENDANT of vaccine status - the smaller % of people who are unvaccinated do NOT "significantly compromise health and safety" of others - AND therefore limitations based on vaccination status CANNOT...
10/...
...be "demonstrably justified" - AND are therefore NOT "reasonable limits".
BC has now created a two-tiered society of "haves" & "have-nots" - where your inability to participate in normal activities in our society (weddings, business meetings, dining, church, etc.) is NOW a reality.
BC just removed medical exemptions - so if you have the definitive contradictions for the vaccine, developed myocarditis or GBS after the 1st shot, etc. - you MUST now be excluded from full participation in society - indefinitely!
2/...
If you think that they are actually going to lift this requirement in January - I have some resort property on the moon to sell you.
It was also disappointing to see Mr. O'Toole's statement include "rapid testing for those who are not vaccinated". Not only does this further perpetuate a segregated, two-tier society - BUT we know that mass testing (or ANY testing at this point) of asymptomatic people...
1/...
...was NEVER based on science AND that such testing results in an extremely low PPV in the context of low prevalence. (As most of ON's testing has been conducted on asymptomatic people - the majority of their CV-19-associated debt was a result of those unscientific actions.
2/..
BUT...while these are clearly actions that CPC should not be taking - the funding for rapid testing, the lack of science supporting it, AND the public's eventual souring to it will likely mean that this policy will quickly fade away.
However, IF you are applying for leave under ESA 50.1(1.1)or(1.2):
"An employer may require an employee who takes leave...to provide evidence reasonable in the circumstances..." 50.1(4)&(4.1)