Hi All,
I agree with Jim, the societal costs of not getting a COVID vaccine are just
way to high. Yes, there is a small chance that there some will experience a
problem from having been vaccinated, but weigh that against the large numbers
who have long COVID. We have no way of knowing if or when they will recover.
It seems likely that some will have serious disabilities for the rest of their
lives. Exercising the individual right to refuse vaccination seems selfish and
inconsiderate.
Take care,
Ed
From: dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Farmilo
Sent: October 21, 2021 3:04 PM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Covid-19 Vaccinations
[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]
Hello to all
About vaccinations I am somewhat conflicted between my heart and my head. As a
leader in a microbiology company in Denmark I know about vaccines, testing and
the things that can happen during trials. We used to joke that Microbiology
was the most secure job in the world because just when you sorted out one
disease God gave you another one.
I have personal experience with drug testing and I have faith that, performed
properly, the results and outcomes are understood. I also believe that every
medication or treatment has a cost and a benefit. For different people the
cost may be more than the benefit and for another person the reverse.
My attitude about the vaccines is that, on a personal basis, the cost is a risk
of side effects and the benefit is a reduced risk of serious COVID harm and
death. Is it worth it....your choice.
However on a society basis and a to me a moral basis the cost is the very low
percentage of side effects and the benefit is reduction of the massive number
of deaths and long term disease. Aside from the deaths due to COVID I have
experienced more than a few friends with delayed kidney transplants, cancer
surgeries and worsening health outcomes caused by hospitals and staff paralyzed
by COVID patients.
So I guess in summary I am not so concerned with I divided choice as societal
choice. I vote for immunization.
YITBOS Jim
On Oct. 21, 2021 4:57 p.m., Bob Thomlinson
<bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Don,
I believe your comment “Data has been filtered and interpreted in many cases to
support one’s personal position and often not objectively reviewed to see if it
meets accepted scientific standards on which one can make valid
recommendations” is valid but it applies to both sides of the debate and will
not get sorted out until a lot more research has been done. At the moment your
comment about “Finding the balance of economic/public health/fiduciary
responsibility of healthcare resource utilization and personal accountability
is and will be an ongoing challenge” accurately describes the situation.
As I watch this debate play out, I can see the parallels with another health
controversy that we have had a very close attachment to. As early as 1955 a
young and ambitious nutrition researcher was being published in scientific
journals and legitimate news media regarding his hypothesis that saturated fat
was a significant contributor to heart disease. We were all kids then and were
probably all embroiled in the switch from animal fats, eggs and some dairy
products (e.g. butter) to “more heathy” proteins and carbohydrates (e.g. sugar).
The history of this debacle and the subsequent tsunami of obesity in North
American should be familiar to you as a doctor. Right up to my retirement in
2008, Marilyn and I followed the nutrition advice of our doctors and the Canada
Food Guide, but continued to get fatter and less healthy. Even then it wasn’t
until 2014 that this nutrition advice was exposed as being completely wrong and
that the young researcher (now a powerful spokesperson for nutrition) had
fiddled his research. Along the way there were many other researchers who were
raising legitimate concerns and asking questions about this issue. They were
treated like pariahs and fired from jobs, lost their research funding and were
publicly criticized and silenced. Note that the primary research funding came
from the processed food industry. Sound familiar?
Today, Marilyn and I eat differently, are very healthy, active and no longer
obese (morbidly obese in my case). This medical mistake took 59 years to
finally be exposed and widely accepted as the fiasco it was. For anyone who is
interested in the history of this story, the pages of Time magazine covered it
frequently in both feature and cover stories starting in 1955 with updates in
1960, 1961, 1964, 1984, 2014, and finally the detailed cover story in 2015 that
documented the whole thing and tried to offer an explanation about how it could
have happened.
So, we don’t believe everything we are told about the Covid-19 vaccines and
don’t automatically brand the anti-vaxers as being stupid & selfish people with
no rights to health care. The ultimate success or failure of mRNA vaccines will
eventually become clear – hopefully, in a lot less than 59 years – but it is
not crystal clear now when long term effects are unknown. In the short term I
agree that mitigating the risks of serious outcomes from Covid-19, for people
with compromised immune systems or the specific pre-existing conditions that
are being tracked, is worth the risks of vaccine adverse reactions. However, I
believe the vaccine should remain a personal risk decision that needs to made
by individuals with the advice of their doctors – just like any other drug. The
vaccine decision is not cut and dried and vaccinating 100% of the population is
still not going to eliminate the viral infection problem. It may introduce a
lot of new problems that we are not even aware of today.
Sorry if this sounds like a criticism of you Don – it’s not. It’s just what we
believe – which is what Wynn challenged us to explore.
Cheers,
Bob T
From:
dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On Behalf Of Donald Denmark
Sent: October 21, 2021 10:19 AM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Covid-19 Vaccinations
Great comments and insightful perspectives presented by both Bob and Willow.
Vaccination with any of the 3 currently approved vaccines clearly reduces your
risk of hospitalization and dying from COVID, however it is not a guarantee
that you will not get COVID if exposed – hence the mask and social distancing
public health recommendations are made to reduce exposure risk.
Protection of “individual freedom” are at the root of many of the anti-vax
stands that have led to conflict here in the States. Unfortunately this
anti-vax choice puts “my neighbor” at risk.
Finding the balance of economic/public health/fiduciary responsibility of
healthcare resource utilization and personal accountability is and will be an
ongoing challenge.
Data has been filtered and interpreted in many cases to support one’s personal
position and often not objectively reviewed to see if it meets accepted
scientific standards on which one can make valid recommendations.
Politics and political agendas have muddied the waters as this national and
international debate goes on.
Don
Donald M Denmark
820 North Curtiswood Lane, Nashville, TN 37204
Cell: (520)-349-1893
From:
<dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
on behalf of Bob Thomlinson
<bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: <dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:45 PM
To: <dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Covid-19 Vaccinations
Willow,
It is always a pleasure to read your well written updates and opinions.
I would agree totally with you except for one small concern about your wording.
Your comments seem to imply that you, like many of our friends, believe that
the current COVID-19 vaccines protect an individual from infection - and should
therefore protect others. Protection from infection was originally hoped for,
but the past year has proven that the vaccination has only been effective in
reducing serious outcomes. Vaccinated people can, and are, still getting
infected and can, and are, still infect others. The ongoing risk of infection
no longer appears to up for debate in the medical community. I do accept that
the ongoing risk of infection is probably deliberately being ignored in the
public health advertising to get people vaccinated - to avoid muddying the
message.
The best protections, and lowest recorded new case counts, were during the lock
downs and restrictions imposed all over the world. However, forcing businesses
to close has had huge economic impacts on people and restricting social
interactions had mental health repercussions, etc. There are just no simple
choices for public health officials and governments to find a response policy
that balances perfectly between what are essentially two really bad choices of
outcome.
The present push for vaccinations is probably not focused on eliminating
infections (even New Zealand has realized that ship has sailed). The current
focus on vaccinations is intended to reduce the level of serious outcomes that
have overloaded our health care capacities. I think the reduction of serious
outcomes, especially in people with compromised immune systems and/or having
pre-existing conditions is one of the only goals that policy makers think they
have a chance to achieve. I accept that a policy of putting pressure on people
to get vaccinated makes sense, including the additional restrictions now placed
on the unvaccinated. Like everyone though, I still wish we weren’t in this
situation and pine for the good old days.
You should remember I suggested that we should met up after you got settled in
your new Alberta home. After all, I am now the DSP brother who lives closest to
you. We have not done that for a reason. Despite the general illusion of
vaccination protection, Marilyn and I both believe we need to remain very
careful about where we go and who we see (vaccinated or not) to protect both
ourselves and others from infection. We still don’t go to restaurants and movie
theatres or entertain indoors, etc. despite the lifted restrictions. I am
still optimistic that we will get to meet up someday and hopefully that day
will be sooner rather than later.
Cheers,
Bob T
From:
dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Willow Arune
Sent: October 19, 2021 8:30 PM
To: dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dsp-ea-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Delta Sig Discussions
Mandatory COVID Vaccines.
In my view, yes. This should never have been a personal freedom or political
issue. It is a public health issue, just as we all got shots before we were
allowed to go to school.
What should happen to those who refused the vaccine? One would be tempted to
withdraw medical services for the unvaccinated who check into ER with Covid.
That is not an answer. It is contrary to our Judeo-Christian values.
We confron the same type of problem when the rules of some religions clash with
what we as a society deem right. If a Jehovah Witness Child requires a blood
transfusion, we let courts decide. When a parent uses unproven “health store”
treatment for a sick child instead of going to a hospital, we use courts.
Quakers and other religions do not allow military service and we have developed
ways to address that issue. RCMP now allow turbans for members of certain
faiths. On the other hand, we denied the use of “social drugs” to those who
claimed such use was a fundamental part of their religion.
Simply put, as a Society, as a Democratic society which allows so many
freedoms, we do draw certain lines or come to accommodations. There is little
consistency. With children where is a matter of life or death and positive
action is normally deemed necessary. We developed a process to individually
resolve such problems. Where the situation is a passive non-action we seem to
fail back to the rule that one does not have to help is another person is
drowning, with special rules for those who try and fail to avoid common law
liability. The reverse is true at sea. A vessel must attempt rescue even in
dangerous circumstances if another vessel is sinking.
For these and other conflicts between religion or morality, we simply do not
seem to have fixed universal rules.
Public health is totally different. Where the common good needs to prevail, it
should. Your freedom does not allow you to refuse matters that are necessary
to protect others. Religion sometimes aside, your personal viewpoint does not
and, In my opinion, should not prevail when you can cause me harm by refusing
to take what science agrees is necessary for the common good. If you develop
certain symptoms, you can be forced to isolate. If you personally decide your
child will not be vaccinated, you put others at risk, not just your child. The
present guidelines are both necessary and proven to be preventative, with few
exceptions. Wearing a mask does not protect you, it prevents you from
potentially doing harm to others. Distant requirements are intended to both
protect you from others and protect you from harming others. The vaccination I
safe, you protect others,over 700,000 have died in the US - there is no reason
for anyone to avoid this duty save for valid medical reasons...
