Massive Lorry Convoy protest in Canada

[Streetwalker]

No, I don't want to read any scientific journals.  If you have a link to the peer-reviewed scientific study, I will read that.  

What is  'peer- reviewed ' ?  

For most people it would be that others in your field of expertise  agree with what you have written ,that they are on the same page as your conclusions . That of course doesn't mean those findings cannot be challenged by others but if other people in your field (your peers)  agree with your findings then that's peer reviewed . 

As there have been many studies /articles by doctors/professors /scientists  stating and all in agreement  that  vaccines reduce transmission ,reduce levels of infection reducing deaths ect , ect  then surely its a peer reviewed science . 

 

[B0ycey]

Oh well, it was a sensible debate, where I just wanted the facts, but throwing around childish comments like this shows you have no argument.  You obviously didn't read the actual science.  You are the kind of person who believes a news headline, and ignores the story.

The article is the facts Scott. But have you ever thought that if I did everything you asked, phoned New Scientist and asked which study the article was based on, then went on line to find the PDF, published the hundreds of pages of the study on here for you to read, that you are somehow going to spend the next few days reading that so you can respond back to me. We all know that was never going to happen so why waste my time. So my response was fair. You don't trust the article. Which means you trust the conspiracy theories instead. You can't debate that. Which is why you have guys shoot up pizza parlors because of the notion that the Democrats are running a pedophile ring, or climate deniers ignoring record global temperatures each year. Just keep your Tin Foil hat on if you like. I don't care.

[Scott777]

You doubt the article Scott? Tin foil hat firmly on it seems. You can't debate that. Some people just like conspiracy theories.

Oh well, it was a sensible debate, where I just wanted the facts, but throwing around childish comments like this shows you have no argument.  You obviously didn't read the actual science.  You are the kind of person who believes a news headline, and ignores the story.

[Barry]

http://Liar.com just donated $42,000 to the #FreedomConvoyCanada2022  Go Fund Me.

http://Liar.com is owned by Elon Musk. 

http://Liar.com now redirects to the Wiki page of @JustinTrudeau

Above from Twitter.

Is it true the Go Fund Me money may be grabbed by the Canada Gov to pay extra expenses caused by the convoy?

[B0ycey]

And did you read the source to verify that it's an accurate summary?

You doubt the article Scott? Tin foil hat firmly on it seems. You can't debate that. Some people just like conspiracy theories.

[Scott777]

The summary is the Article Scott. The NewScientist do the hard yards so you don't have to.

And did you read the source to verify that it's an accurate summary?

[Borchester]

The New Scientist is a journal that gets its articles from peer reviewed Science. Very much like Nature, it is where Scientist get their information from and I suspect if I found the PDF online for you to read, I doubt you're going to read the hundred pages of findings over this article.

As for asking me whether I support contracts stimulating terms of employment, why would I be against that? I am assuming you want the right people in the right role? Current employees should have their contract honoured and new employees need to fulfil the terms of their contract. And those fired in care unjustly to their contract should be rehired.

No it bloody well doesn't.

A while back New Scientist published a report that the all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035. The story was picked up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and was treated as gospel for the next ten years, much to the delight of the New Scientist's circulation department. But finally some dreary sod checked the source, which was a chap called Syed Hasnain and who said that it was only a suggestion. Further suggestions were that the good professor may have dined well when he made his original comment.

Meanwhile, the Himalayas are believed to be actually growing, which is something you can believe because I have just told you so.

[B0ycey]

I would be happy to read the summary of findings.  But I'm curious to know if you did.

If you tell an employee, (who may have worked many years in their position), that they must get a vaccine or be sacked, that is coercion.  It's one thing to coerce into taking a jab that's completed clinical trials, but for an experimental one, which has the possible effect of causing death, an ethical line is crossed.

The summary is the Article Scott. The NewScientist do the hard yards so you don't have to.

As for your second point, I have already said I don't agree with the mandate. To me having a staffing crisis is worse than transmission risk. And that isn't even getting to the point of freedom of choice. Those who have contracts should have them honoured. But that is different to new recruitment. If you apply for a position you abide by the terms you sign up to. That is my point.

[Scott777]

The New Scientist is a journal that gets its articles from peer reviewed Science. Very much like Nature, it is where Scientist get their information from and I suspect if I found the PDF online for you to read, I doubt you're going to read the hundred pages of findings over this article.

As for asking me whether I support contracts stimulating terms of employment, why would I be against that? I am assuming you want the right people in the right role? Current employees should have their contract honoured and new employees need to fulfil the terms of their contract. And those fired in care unjustly to their contract should be retired.

I would be happy to read the summary of findings.  But I'm curious to know if you did.

If you tell an employee, (who may have worked many years in their position), that they must get a vaccine or be sacked, that is coercion.  It's one thing to coerce into taking a jab that's completed clinical trials, but for an experimental one, which has the possible effect of causing death, an ethical line is crossed.

[B0ycey]

No, I don't want to read any scientific journals.  If you have a link to the peer-reviewed scientific study, I will read that.  A journal is not science.  So if you agree vaccines should not be coerced, then you must also agree they should not be in an employment contract.  And what about care staff who got sacked?

The New Scientist is a journal that gets its articles from peer reviewed Science. Very much like Nature, it is where Scientist get their information from and I suspect if I found the PDF online for you to read, I doubt you're going to read the hundred pages of findings over this article.

As for asking me whether I support contracts stimulating terms of employment, why would I be against that? I am assuming you want the right people in the right role? Current employees should have their contract honoured and new employees need to fulfil the terms of their contract. And those fired in care unjustly to their contract should be rehired.

[Scott777]

Want to read a leading Scientific Journals take on transmission?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-yourvaccinated/amp/

Not that I want a debate on this given we are in agreement the vaccine shouldn't be coerced of course. But merely point out there is logic in the madness.

No, I don't want to read any scientific journals.  If you have a link to the peer-reviewed scientific study, I will read that.  A journal is not science.  So if you agree vaccines should not be coerced, then you must also agree they should not be in an employment contract.  And what about care staff who got sacked?

[Sheepy]

All very well, but has anyone seen the great leader Trudeau? it's not like anyone has said he will be facing a Nuremberg type trial, is it?

[B0ycey]

We have been over it time and again, and no one has provided any such evidence that it is significant. 

Want to read a leading Scientific Journals take on transmission?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-yourvaccinated/amp/

Not that I want a debate on this given we are in agreement the vaccine shouldn't be coerced of course. But merely point out there is logic in the madness.

[Scott777]

Scott, I don't care about the mandate given the alternative is a staffing crisis which is worse. But that doesn't mean I will stick my head in the sand for some ideological fantasy. Vaccination does cut the transmission rate but sure you'll find a few cases of vaccinated carriers given the efficiency rate isn't 100%. And that is the logic of demanding staff to be vaccinated. To protect people who are sick and with a low immune system from catching Covid AS BEST AS YOU CAN whilst the6t are in hospital. But stating that is not saying I support the bill. Not only does it infringe on rights, it reduces the trained staff capacity and ultimately reduces care overall. And it seems the mandate is going anyway. Have to see what Javid says later.

That's fine, I appreciate some of that, but the ideological fantasy is that vaccines reduce transmission.  We have been over it time and again, and no one has provided any such evidence that it is significant.  However, wearing a paper bag over your head may make a miniscule difference, so should we recommend that?  The vaccines are experimental, and should never be coerced in any way.

[Scott777]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTwZPnCjr3g