posted ago by CanadianRighty ago by CanadianRighty +7 / -0

A) it’s all morbidly obese (like you?) or very old, you guys should stay home B) Lots of other countries are fully open without restrictions, and they’re doing great- why can’t we? C) I don’t give a shit about your opinions on what makes sense, I want facts backing up the infringement of rights, how many lives are estimated to be saved by these bans? Where is the science?

Comments (13)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
tuchodi -8 points ago +1 / -9

it’s all morbidly obese or very old

They say, with no demographic data to back it up. It's true the old and the sick are hardest hit, but to say that all the damage is to them is not accurate.

Lots of other countries are fully open without restrictions

Ten, or 15 percent, perhaps. 11 May 2022

why can’t we?

Because we're still in a global pandemic, and most of the health systems in the world continue to enact restrictions ranging from mild to completely closed.

Where is the science?

Link to the mandate your talking about and I'll see if they provide a rationale.

CanadianRighty [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

You’ve never provided evidence justifying a lockdown on the unvaccinated.

You show hospital stats, but where are the studies demonstrating the measures are effective?

How many lives are being saved by not allowing healthy people to travel?

What will it take to open up? Specifically- what is the metric? Please provide a link the circumstances under which the federal travel restrictions will end.

tuchodi -8 points ago +1 / -9

Got any links?

CanadianRighty [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

A triple-vaccinated 70-year-old with diabetes, for instance, would still have a higher risk of hospitalization than an unvaccinated 30-year-old. Of course, discriminating against the ability to travel based on age would be unethical. So wouldn’t discriminating based on risk of severe disease be unethical, too?