This is true, unfortunately.

He would have to read some to make this claim.

Covid vaccines are 5x more effective at preventing hospitalization than prior infection alone: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211029152244.htm

Public health measures in place does not equal lockdown. Most places haven't been under lockdown for quite a while. This is dramatic language to provoke an emotional response.

As in they are not essential workers? Or they've been asked to suspend some of their usual activities and be cautious to protect others?

This feels like baiting. The entire tone of this article is objectionable. He essentially sets up his "colleagues" as a straw man.

On these matters, I am definitely more inclined to trust those who have dedicated their lives to studying medicine and public health than a misinformed political theorist.

Who are these people? If they exist, they should be cited.

Agreed - I would be curious what would be this author's remedy for that. Letting an already strained healthcare system completely collapse under the weight of COVID won't help matters.

I would still argue that individual rights end where the next individual begins. Refusing to be vaccinated is an individual right; however, that doesn't give one the right to continue unfettered with a far greater likelihood of spreading disease to others and unduly burdening collective resources like hospitals.

If he were truly powerless and/or censored, would this publication in which to share his views be available?

It's also exceedingly difficult to excavate those on the other side.

The morally superior tone here is really something else. Clearly he doesn't respect his colleagues at all.

I think a better question would be "Why are some individuals not using their critical thinking skills? Why are others using positions of power and influence to sow misinformation?"

Yes, however the scientific method is being used to evaluate the technology, and the results of that show that it is reducing transmission and severe disease. Data from Ontario shows unvaccinated people are 60x more likely to end up in the ICU. https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/sciencebrief/update-on-covid-19-projections-11/

Citation would be helpful here.

Red herring.

Nothing cited here, and there have been examples (see Bruce Pardy op ed above) of critical news posted in mainstream media. Here's another: https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-vaccine-passports-certificates-covid-1.5882674

Again, give a real example of this occurring. Some of the other authors in this publication have received air time in 'mainstream' media (example: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-covid-has-cost-canadians-their-freedom-it-must-be-restored).

The language/tone here is not objective at all. What about Occam's razor? Perhaps if there is broad agreement, it's for a good reason, rather than conspiracy?

Evidence? VAERS is definitely unreliable if you were to use it by looking at individual reports - anyone can submit anything - its purpose is to show larger trends, and then make changes. In fact this was the case with the routinely given Rotavirus vaccine which was found to cause intussusception in rare cases, and changes were made.

Citations: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-vaers-color-office.pdf https://theconversation.com/unverified-reports-of-vaccine-side-effects-in-vaers-arent-the-smoking-guns-portrayed-by-right-wing-media-outlets-they-can-offer-insight-into-vaccine-hesitancy-166401 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5334a3.htm

Again, some specific and concrete examples would be great.

Again, where is the line between "alternatives" and misinformation? I don't think lying to the public is acceptable, and I've seen plenty of chiropractors on Twitter calling themselves Doctor and doing just that. Unfortunately with no citations it's difficult to assess what he's talking about.

Evidence? Who is doing this censoring? Which unofficial channels?

(Also, and related ethical question: Should misinformation be permitted to flourish? Where is the line between shutting down patently false information and censorship?)

Evidence required. This is false: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

Perhaps because there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary? We don't listen to people who say the moon landing was faked, either.

Evidence? Adverse events beyond a fever, sore arm have been incredibly rare: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

If this individual has evidence to suggest that regulatory agencies have been corrupted during the vaccine review process he should cite it. Otherwise this is just sowing the seeds of doubt.

There is an important difference in being excluded based on behaviour vs. personal characteristics. Again, this is co-opting language and concepts from feminism, critical race theory and others.

Red herring. Vaccines reduce risk. No one is claiming they offer absolute safety.

I actually agree with him here. The mandates are coercive. I don't agree with aspects of the way they are being implemented and had hoped they would not be necessary. The problem with this article is that this author is misinformed as to the basic facts, which compromises his entire argument.

This is just patently false. The vaccines have passed all of the regulatory steps including clinical trials and testing. This article covers the American process but explains clearly how it was possible to do so quickly: https://elemental.medium.com/the-absolutely-true-incredibly-amazing-story-of-the-covid-19-vaccine-264c65891632

Citation needed. Legitimate medical exemptions are being accommodated.

This is an effort at co-opting concepts from feminism and other theories and misconstruing them to apply to vaccine mandates. The state already does intrude on people's bodies, and this is acceptable to society if it legitimately reduces the risk to others. For example: I am required to wear corrective lenses to drive. Keeping my prescription up to date requires me to be subject to medical procedures at regular intervals. I could choose not to participate in these medical procedures, but then my driving privileges would be revoked, and rightly so. My rights end where another person's begin. Individualism ought not be paramount.

Reductionist argument, and weaponizing DEI language.

Not actually that new: https://pssjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13037-021-00291-9

Clearly not, since that would require reading some literature about vaccines, which would then invalidate his entire a priori argument.

This is actually hilarious given the second goal of the organization publishing this newsletter.

This should be cited; I'd like to judge the level of creepiness for myself.

I would argue that hospital resources represent a commons problem - there is a finite supply and potentially infinite demand in a pandemic, and those who choose not to be vaccinated have no right to disproportionately consume health resources to the detriment of everyone else. This is a selfish take that lacks integrity.

Personal choice/preference is not a protected class against discrimination.

Per the Canadian Human Rights Act: 3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/section-3.html

Based on false premise.

Based on false premise, as above.

This is false. The entire argument is premised on a false understanding of the vaccines and what they do. They don't 100% prevent transmission, but they reduce it, and they significantly reduce severe disease (and associated burden on hospitals). Sources (since this author doesn't cite any): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00061-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/how-vaccines-reduce-transmission

This is false. The entire argument is premised on a false understanding of the vaccines and what they do. They don't 100% prevent transmission, but they reduce it, and they significantly reduce severe disease (and associated burden on hospitals). Sources (since this author doesn't cite any): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00061-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/how-vaccines-reduce-transmission

I think testing requirements and accommodation to work from home in some cases would make sense.

Incorrect.

Uh huh. What's the line between censorship and a requirement to be truthful? There are a lot of quacks out there. I thought this was a good article: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/

Some highly suspect sources being cited here (unfortunately the #s don't line up). I provided a source on adverse event reporting above and how it works. A death after the vaccine is not necessarily caused by the vaccine - correlation does not equal causation.

Which is essentially zero.

They do - see above citation, plus: http://clalitresearch.org/largest-real-world-study-of-third-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness/

Most childhood vaccines are a 3-dose series so this isn't entirely surprising.

This is true, but it hasn't quite happened yet.

This is false. There is ongoing monitoring, which is normal for any pharmaceutical approved by Health Canada, but the vaccines are not 'experimental'. The vast majority of adverse events take place within 8 weeks of a vaccine being administered. Long term monitoring can help find exceedingly rare impacts as discussed with intussusception above.

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects

The vast majority of medical professionals disagree, and given that this author is a geographer, that matters.

Again, death is not the only metric worth covering here. Younger folks are also prone to long covid and I think our healthcare systems are woefully unprepared for the coming wave of disability associated with that.

That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have lived for many more years without Covid, and comorbidities can include fairly benign things under regular circumstances like hypertension and pregnancy. The argument of "well those who died had comorbidities" is ableist and dismissive.

True. However, I'd say that any preventable death of a young person is a tragedy.

Incorrect (see sources above). This is like arguing that Karen Kain and I can both dance.

This assumes that the only pressing and substantial objective is to reduce deaths. I would argue that protecting our hospital system is a far more pressing and substantial objective. Deaths don't cause health system collapse.

I see we now have a geographer practicing law.

True, but this assumes that all Covid cases are mild, which they're not, and assumes that hospitals are not at risk of being overloaded, which they are.

Far less than unvaccinated people, and they're less likely to become infected, too. I'd hardly say that obliterates the rationale, but it does weaken it.

This isn't unusual, and COVID vaccines weren't promised to be sterilizing: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009509

A significant proportion of breakthrough cases are mild, and far more unvaccinated people are hospitalized and die than vaccinated people. A few hospitalized people who are double vaccinated does not mean we throw the vaccine baby out with the bathwater. This is all or nothing thinking.

Not entirely true. Yes, there are some breakthrough cases, but they are mild, and mild infection reduces your likelihood of transmission. Plus if you don't get infected in the first place, you cannot transmit. https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/how-vaccines-reduce-transmission

This should be obvious: by reducing severe disease and death. Employers also will be interested in the reduction of long Covid associated with vaccination given that they offer disability coverage to employees: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/how-vaccines-reduce-long-covid

I agree with this point. If positions can reasonably work from home all the time, then that should be accommodated to the point of reasonable hardship for the employer.

Privacy commissioners have given guidance on how mandates should be implemented to comply with privacy law: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/speeches/2021/s-d_20210519/

Seems a bold claim to only support with anecdotal evidence.

In this context, mandarin is an old word for high-level bureaucrat. Ch 22 covers the bureaucracy in more detail.

The textbook talks about some of these this week.

Links to some thoughts in this article: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2018/a-federal-equalization-program-that-includes-first-nations/

Recall that, at the time of writing, the 1995 Quebec referendum had just taken place and the results were remarkably close. There is further discussion in Ch 5 of our textbook.

Recall that at the time of writing, devolution had not yet taken place.

Available here: https://cyfn.ca/agreements/umbrella-final-agreement/

This department has recently been split into two, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs.html

Ch 17 in our textbook describes the Charlottetown Accord in detail.

Has this changed in the 23 years since this article was written?

For the seminal article on (white) privilege, see Peggy McIntosh's work, "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack": https://www.winnipeg.ca/clerks/boards/citizenequity/pdfs/white_privilege.pdf

See A Twelve-Step Program for a Post-Colonial future. By: GREEN, JOYCE, BURTON, MICHAEL, Canadian Dimension, 00083402, Nov/Dec2013, Vol. 47, Issue 6 for one model of what this could look like.

Compare this section to Ch 2 in our textbook. What are the differences in perspective?