"Finally, OSHA provides employers with specific guidance for environments at a higher risk for exposure to or spread of COVID-19, primarily workplaces where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers are more likely to be in prolonged, close contact with other workers or the public, or in closed spaces without adequate ventilation." https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework
You admitted you don’t understand the links you post Tuchodi, it’s clear you barely read past the title when you Google your replies.
You linked a study that confirms INFECTED people transfer droplets when they cough. We all agree, when you’re infected and coughing, stay home, wear a mask. YOU PROVIDE NO SCIENCE that supports forcing healthy people to trap bacteria against their faces and rebreathe their filth. Where’s your science that supports HEALTHY, PCR negative people should be banned from flight?
Link the science that explains why your political party allows the elderly, obese, high risk, multiple comorbidities and frail people to fly in a cramped space without a PCR test, but bans the healthy who test negative.
Where’s your science Tuchodi.?
LINKS??
YOU YOURSELF REFUSE YO GET BOOSTED. So you don’t trust the injections, you don’t trust Fauci and you obviously don’t trust the CDC.
There are a couple of links in my most recent reply to you. I'll paste them at the bottom.
bans the healthy who test negative.
Only if they're unvaccinated, because when those people catch covid - and where better to do that than on an airplane? - they wind up in care more often. Today's figures from Ontario show that the 10% of eligible people who are unvaccinated are supplying about 22% of the people in care: https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data
YOU YOURSELF REFUSE YO GET BOOSTED
That's funny :-)
Earlier reply repeated: "Conclusions - Overall, wearing masks was effective in preventing RVIs, especially SARS, influenza, and COVID-19. Besides, N95 masks, surgical masks, and common masks were all effective for RVIs prevention. This suggests that people should be encouraged to wear masks when they are in a large group of people to reduce the risk of RVIs." 27 April 2022 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.874693/full
Your link includes yet AGAIN “unvaccinated” data as of 14th December 2020!!, when EVERYONE was unvaccinated. Hence there is no comparable value. Even in January 2021, 99.7% of Canada was fully unvaccinated. LOL!!!
Trudeau regime also refuses to list the definition of their variables on their government website, highly suspicious and insanely unscientific. This means “Covid cases” and “Covid hospitalization” were either SUSPECTED or UNCONFIRMED. The gov doesn’t want to deny or specify.
Despite using fraudulent 2020 data when every Canadian was unvaccinated, your Trudeau Regime link still has to conclude now that: only 45% of unvaccinated but 55% of the vaccinated were hospitalized. !!
This is another self own. Very embarrassing that you keep linking outdated 2020 data and unscientific conclusion.
Keep letting the lurkers know what kind of corrupt rat propagandist your are.
And your proof that it isn't is what?
Where’s your proof segregation of unvaccinated children reduces covid spread/mortality?
What is the stratified risk to children of covid? Why doesn’t the government make this information known?
You simply refuse to provide any backup whatsoever for your medical apartheid. The burden of proof is on the group infringing rights.
Is the science different in Canada? Can you cite one other country restricting domestic travel for the unvaccinated?
What is the mortality risk for a health 12 year old????????
When will the apartheid end?
Of course only when your political master announces it.
This never had anything to do with science, it’s all about jamming your radical agenda down the throats of Canadians.
As soon as your master announces climate lock downs you’ll drop to your knees and beg “yes daddy”.
Thank god you only represent a fringe minority with unacceptable views.
"In some situations, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, the COVID-19 virus can spread when a person is exposed to small droplets or aerosols that stay in the air for minutes to hours." https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/safe-activities-during-covid19/art-20489385
"COVID-19 spreads from an infected person to others through respiratory droplets and aerosols that can vary in size, such as: 1) large droplets that fall to the ground rapidly (within seconds or minutes) near the infected person 2) smaller droplets, sometimes called aerosols, that linger in the air, especially in indoor spaces" https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks.html
"Finally, OSHA provides employers with specific guidance for environments at a higher risk for exposure to or spread of COVID-19, primarily workplaces where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers are more likely to be in prolonged, close contact with other workers or the public, or in closed spaces without adequate ventilation." https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework
You admitted you don’t understand the links you post Tuchodi, it’s clear you barely read past the title when you Google your replies.
You linked a study that confirms INFECTED people transfer droplets when they cough. We all agree, when you’re infected and coughing, stay home, wear a mask. YOU PROVIDE NO SCIENCE that supports forcing healthy people to trap bacteria against their faces and rebreathe their filth. Where’s your science that supports HEALTHY, PCR negative people should be banned from flight?
Link the science that explains why your political party allows the elderly, obese, high risk, multiple comorbidities and frail people to fly in a cramped space without a PCR test, but bans the healthy who test negative.
Where’s your science Tuchodi.?
LINKS??
u/tuchodi u/urallfucked why are you refusing to get boosted with a shot you want healthy 5 years old to get injected with?
There are a couple of links in my most recent reply to you. I'll paste them at the bottom.
Only if they're unvaccinated, because when those people catch covid - and where better to do that than on an airplane? - they wind up in care more often. Today's figures from Ontario show that the 10% of eligible people who are unvaccinated are supplying about 22% of the people in care: https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data
That's funny :-)
Earlier reply repeated: "Conclusions - Overall, wearing masks was effective in preventing RVIs, especially SARS, influenza, and COVID-19. Besides, N95 masks, surgical masks, and common masks were all effective for RVIs prevention. This suggests that people should be encouraged to wear masks when they are in a large group of people to reduce the risk of RVIs." 27 April 2022 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.874693/full
"The emergence of the omicron variant and the prospect of future variants that might be more transmissible and reduce vaccine effectiveness only increases the value of face masks." April 2022 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266722000408
It's right here in Figure 7: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html
^ FRAUDULENT STATISTICS ALERT ^
Your link includes yet AGAIN “unvaccinated” data as of 14th December 2020!!, when EVERYONE was unvaccinated. Hence there is no comparable value. Even in January 2021, 99.7% of Canada was fully unvaccinated. LOL!!!
Trudeau regime also refuses to list the definition of their variables on their government website, highly suspicious and insanely unscientific. This means “Covid cases” and “Covid hospitalization” were either SUSPECTED or UNCONFIRMED. The gov doesn’t want to deny or specify.
Despite using fraudulent 2020 data when every Canadian was unvaccinated, your Trudeau Regime link still has to conclude now that: only 45% of unvaccinated but 55% of the vaccinated were hospitalized. !!
This is another self own. Very embarrassing that you keep linking outdated 2020 data and unscientific conclusion.
Keep letting the lurkers know what kind of corrupt rat propagandist your are.
They asked for "stratified" risk. I gave them some numbers by age.
Got any quotes and links to support your opinions?