Should COVID boosters be mandatory for the aviation sector ?

[photofly]

Do you deny that the principle of natural selection applies to human beings

There are about a bazillion equally relevant and equally forehead-slapping and mind-numbingly "duh" totally obvious things to say immediately after "let's protect the vulnerable", that what reveals your attitude is which one you pick. When someone says "we all agree we must do X but let's not forget Y" - Y is the point they really want to make, and the "we must do X" is merely to sound reasonable.

If you think it's important to protect the vulnerable, then say so. No need to say more. If you decide to say more, it's for a reason. What's that reason?

[Vaticinator]

If you think it's important to protect the vulnerable, then say so. No need to say more. If you decide to say more, it's for a reason. What's that reason?

I'm pretty sure I already gave that reason.

we could protect those vulnerable, while simultaneously letting the rest of us who are not vulnerable, get on with the business of normal life. You know, greater good and all that.

I get it. You're triggered by the fact that unlike you, I'm not clutching my pearls over the fact that old and sick people are ending up in hospitals. I'm sorry that I'm not willing to virtue signal to the contrary. I just assumed it was trivially obvious that that's what happens to the old and the sick. That doesn't mean I don't think we should make efforts to prevent that wherever possible, as I've said all along.

If you truly think it's important to protect the vulnerable and you believe there's only one way to do that, I'll ask again, why you are so confrontational to someone who has done exactly everything that you think is right? No need to say more, right? If you decide to say more, it's for a reason, right? What's that reason? My actions weren't good enough? Do you demand that I think the same as you as well?

[photofly]

I get it. You're triggered by the fact that unlike you, I'm not clutching my pearls over the fact that old and sick people are ending up in hospitals.

That's right. Those are not the vulnerable people you care to protect. You're clear on that.

[Vaticinator]

Please elaborate on exactly how I've made that clear. Show me where I've drawn any distinction between any vulnerable group of people and indicated that some should be protected and others shouldn't. Or are you just arguing in bad faith, attributing ill intent where there is none?

[photofly]

Please elaborate on exactly how I've made that clear. Show me where I've drawn any distinction between any vulnerable group of people and indicated that some should be protected and others shouldn't. Or are you just arguing in bad faith, attributing ill intent where there is none?

I returned to this post of yours, reading it several times, carefully.
viewtopic.php?p=1176746#p1176746

The messages I come away with are that

1. you believe you are in favour of protecting the vulnerable
2. old people are prey to "natural selection"
3. people who are unwell "due to their own choices" are hypocrites for expecting to be protected, and by extension, anyone who is not unwell should not advocate protecting those who are unwell "due to their own choices".

I can't square points 2 and 3 with point 1. Protecting the vulnerable means protecting all the vulnerable, no matter why they're vulnerable.

You say

You all like to talk about "the greater good" but you do it when, in reality, you're actually talking about everyone making sacrifices to benefit only small segments of the population.

The context in which you say this makes it clear you feel asking everyone to make sacrifices that benefit a small yet vulnerable section of the population is an unreasonable thing to do. But reverse it, and the horror of your position becomes apparent. You are suggesting that it would be more reasonable for that small yet vulnerable section of the population to be sacrificed because it will be better for everyone else. That protecting the old and the sick-by-their-own-choice is an unreasonable burden for the young-and-healthy majority to bear. I'm sure I don't have to remind you which societies have taken that position, and where it led.

I don't attribute to you ill-intent, just muddy thinking. You can't have it both ways. Protecting the vulnerable means that everyone suffers. Being in favour of "protecting the vulnerable" but only to the extent that it's free, is not a position to which anyone needs to stake a claim. If you're going to boast about being in favour of protecting the vulnerable, you have to be ready to pay what that costs, and to ask and expect and everyone else to do so too. There is no "protect the vulnerable", otherwise.

[ReserveTank]

Please elaborate on exactly how I've made that clear. Show me where I've drawn any distinction between any vulnerable group of people and indicated that some should be protected and others shouldn't. Or are you just arguing in bad faith, attributing ill intent where there is none?

I returned to this post of yours, reading it several times, carefully.
viewtopic.php?p=1176746#p1176746

The only messages I come away with are that

1. you believe you are in favour of protecting the vulnerable
2. old people are prey to "natural selection"
3. people who are unwell "due to their own choices" are hypocrites for expecting to be protected

I can't square points 2 and 3 with point 1. Protecting the vulnerable means protecting all the vulnerable, no matter why they're vulnerable. '

You say

You all like to talk about "the greater good" but you do it when, in reality, you're actually talking about everyone making sacrifices to benefit only small segments of the population.

The context in which you say this makes it clear you feel asking every to make sacrifices that benefit small segments of the population is an unreasonable thing to do. But reverse it, and the horror of your position becomes apparent. You are suggesting that it would be more reasonable for a small yet vulnerable section of the population to be sacrificed because it will be better for everyone else. I'm sure I don't have to remind you which societies have taken that position, and where it led.

To sum up: protecting the vulnerable means that everyone suffers. There is no protect the vulnerable, otherwise.

The average life span in Canada is 80--AVERAGE.
Elderly are the top demographic to die from covid and just about damn near everything else.
Nobody wants grandpa to pass, but when did we lose the understanding that it happens at old age? That thought process is below juvenile.
Other vulnerables such as people who abused their health...historically, breathing out of a hose has always been a natural conclusion for them. This is not a new thing.

And how to protect the elderly? The modern family shoves them in old age homes instead of caring for them directly. Just as well to have been an ice floe. My hope from all of this is that people realize the value of family and begin to take care of them, but IDK...that IG feed is so dope (-amine).

Must I also be a true believer in your dogma?

The central tenets of Korona are much like any other modern religion. You've got to believe in the unseen, and only their anecdotes count. Your anecdotes need nobel-prize winning sources which shall then be pooh-poohed because PolitiFact "fact-checked" them. There's a parallel between the golden plates and the unisolated virus. I swear, they are 2 steps away from tying this to beings from some other planet.

spend 60+ days intubated with covid caused necrotizing pneumonia with permanent loss of 60% of your lung capacity

Does the ventilator itself cause any harm?

[photofly]

The average life span in Canada is 80--AVERAGE.

The life expectancy of a newborn Canadian is yes, about 80 years. But the life expectancy of an average 80 year old in Canada is nearly 90 - and so they should on average expect to live another 10 years. Those 10 years are not yours to give away for your own convenience or to soothe your conscience, thank you kindly. Even a 90 year old in Canada can expect to live another five years. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your "the old are already dead" position.

Nobody wants grandpa to pass,

And if Grandpa just had his 80th birthday, Grandpa doesn't need to and should not expect to pass, for another 10 years, on average, except for COVID.

[Bede]

The average life span in Canada is 80--AVERAGE.
Elderly are the top demographic to die from covid and just about damn near everything else.
Nobody wants grandpa to pass, but when did we lose the understanding that it happens at old age? That thought process is below juvenile.
Other vulnerables such as people who abused their health...historically, breathing out of a hose has always been a natural conclusion for them. This is not a new thing.

That's the same with pretty much any disease: cancer, heart disease, etc. Using your logic, we could all but eliminate 90% of our health care system.

And how to protect the elderly? The modern family shoves them in old age homes instead of caring for them directly. Just as well to have been an ice floe. My hope from all of this is that people realize the value of family and begin to take care of them, but IDK...that IG feed is so dope (-amine).

Fully agree with you on this point.

The central tenets of Korona are much like any other modern religion. You've got to believe in the unseen, and only their anecdotes count. Your anecdotes need nobel-prize winning sources which shall then be pooh-poohed because PolitiFact "fact-checked" them. There's a parallel between the golden plates and the unisolated virus. I swear, they are 2 steps away from tying this to beings from some other planet.

Nope. What you need to do is gather a large amount of evidence, have the experience to weigh the evidence, and come to conclusions and recommendations. Like any vocation, this skill set requires a lot of schooling and experience. This is why we people spend years in school to get PhD's: because gathering scientific evidence is a very difficult task. Weighing everyone else's evidence is immeasurably more difficult.

No one needs anecdotes from "nobel-prize winning sources". In fact we don't need anecdotes at all.

Does the ventilator itself cause any harm?

Dear God, yes. Ventilator Induced Lung Injury (VILI).

[Vaticinator]

I think the limitations of trying to have a serious discussion in this format are becoming apparent as it seems like you are misinterpreting my position. That's my fault for not explaining more clearly. I will try to clarify a few things.

The messages I come away with are that

1. you believe you are in favour of protecting the vulnerable

I am. Not at any cost, and I'm sorry if that is what offends you, but generally speaking, I most certainly am.

2. old people are prey to "natural selection"

They are. This isn't ground breaking news. I'm assuming we're all adult enough to be able to confront and openly discuss uncomfortable truths. This is one of them. After a certain point in our aging process, our bodies begin to decline in their abilities to fight off disease, recover, etc. As a result, the elderly get sick and die at rates far higher than the rest of the population. I invoke this idea not to suggest that because this is true, we shouldn't care or try, but rather that we need to accept the fact that in spite of our best efforts, these people will unfortunately, always bear a disproportionate brunt of things like pandemics. To be clear, I'm merely observing an obvious fact, which I can do while simultaneously holding the belief that we can and should protect them. Furthermore, I believe that there has to be other possible tactics to protect them, beyond what we have done. Trotting them out as though they're a group of sacred cows in order to shut down any such discussion and critical examination of those tactics benefits no one. Believing that there could possibly be other equally effective, yet less costly to society at large (more on that later) ways to protect them, does not equate to a lack of care for them. I will never understand the impulse to blindly defend the status quo to the point of not allowing skepticism of it. I think we can do better for everyone else while not sacrificing the necessary level of protection.

3. people who are unwell "due to their own choices" are hypocrites for expecting to be protected, and by extension, anyone who is not unwell should not advocate protecting those who are unwell "due to their own choices".

I disagree with your use of the term "unwell" in your assessment of my position, but if it's easier than "people who have not taken an active role in the pursuit and maintenance of their own health optimization", call it what you want. But the fact of the matter is that in spite of decades of science on health, its benefits (especially with regards to fighting viral infections), diet, exercise, longevity, etc, most people do not take an active role in their own health. This is precisely the same problem you have with anti vaxxers: that they are ignoring established science to the overall detriment of their personal health, and by extension our socialized health care system. Look, if we can't agree on these three facts, we will never see eye to eye on this. 1- Health is important for longevity and successfully fighting viral infections, among many other things. 2- Optimal health can be improved and maintained only with the active participation of its person. 3- Most people do not take an active role in optimizing their health. With that in mind, it is not the expectation of protection that I find hypocritical. However, refusing to take an active preventative role in one's own health, and then demanding that other people undergo a medical intervention (that they may not want) on your behalf, is the height of hypocrisy. If you are a person who has never prioritized your own health, you simply cannot ask a stranger to prioritize your health equal to or higher than their own, without being a hypocrite. That is hypocritical by definition.

I can't square points 2 and 3 with point 1. Protecting the vulnerable means protecting all the vulnerable, no matter why they're vulnerable.

The circumstances of one's vulnerability are not important to me. They should be protected regardless. But not at any cost. I understand that might be hard for more sensitive people to hear, but let's be adults here. We all actually already know this is how it works. If it were protection for everyone at any cost, we would have experienced lockdowns that made what we actually went through, look like a joke. We could have locked down our borders and literally locked everyone in their houses with the military in full hazmat gear patrolling the streets until there were zero cases of covid. We did a "lite", temporary version of this for only as long as it took to keep the situation manageable. We accepted that zero is not a reasonable risk tolerance level because the measures would be too draconian. We accepted that we will try to protect people, but not at any cost. This isn't because we don't care about the vulnerable, it's because we're realistic enough to know it's unreasonable to only accept "zero". Anyone offended by this, needs to grow up and join reality. As pilots we should be used to this concept. In aviation, risk can never be eliminated, only mitigated. Same with life. If we're all mature enough to accept this, then we can accept that we can't protect everyone at all times. And if we can accept that along with other fundamental truths, we see that vulnerable people will disproportionately be affected by gaps in our protection. It's not because anyone bears them any ill will, or doesn't care, it's simply that we can't offer 100% protection.

The context in which you say this makes it clear you feel asking everyone to make sacrifices that benefit a small yet vulnerable section of the population is an unreasonable thing to do. But reverse it, and the horror of your position becomes apparent. You are suggesting that it would be more reasonable for that small yet vulnerable section of the population to be sacrificed because it will be better for everyone else. That protecting the old and the sick-by-their-own-choice is an unreasonable burden for the young-and-healthy majority to bear. I'm sure I don't have to remind you which societies have taken that position, and where it led.

I don't believe that is a fair assessment of my position and furthermore I believe it's an assessment that is based on thinking with blinders on, while my point is exactly that we should be removing our blinders. You seem to think I disagree with making the sacrifices we've all made to protect the vulnerable, as these are the only possible ways to mitigate the risk. However, it's the thinking that what we have done in the past are the only ways to mitigate risk, that I disagree with. I'm certainly not suggesting that I have the answers, but I do believe it's crazy that for two years we never really changed our tactics (admittedly, we are starting to now, finally), even when it became apparent that those tactics weren't terribly effective and they came at a tremendous cost. We love to focus solely on the toll from covid. People are terrified of the case numbers. We never give any real thought to the cost of our mitigation efforts. Three million jobs lost, thousands of families dragged back below the poverty line, tens of thousands of young children now in tenuous home and family situations, often coupled with food uncertainty, just to name a few. In our efforts to protect the vulnerable from a medical danger, we've imperiled people vulnerable to poverty and social dangers and dragged thousands more into that vulnerable group. In a sense, we've robbed Peter to pay Paul. Did we weigh all these outcomes when we made our initial decisions? Probably not, and fair enough. We had to act fast. But in the intervening two years, did we look at the fallout and recalculate? Did we look for mitigation tactics that could have still provided good protection but had less adverse effects on the socially vulnerable? Maybe, but it doesn't seem that way. I find it hard to believe that our brightest minds couldn't have come up with a better approach. My personal opinion is that our leaders and officials have, on the whole, failed us, but they're doing a great job of keeping us too distracted with case numbers and the variant du jour, to notice.

I don't attribute to you ill-intent, just muddy thinking. You can't have it both ways. Protecting the vulnerable means that everyone suffers. Being in favour of "protecting the vulnerable" but only to the extent that it's free, is not a position to which anyone needs to stake a claim. If you're going to boast about being in favour of protecting the vulnerable, you have to be ready to pay what that costs, and to ask and expect and everyone else to do so too. There is no "protect the vulnerable", otherwise.

I disagree with the notion that "everyone suffers" to protect the vulnerable. I've done the masks, the cancelled travel plans, the social distancing, the lockdowns, the first shot, the second shot, all of it. I haven't suffered at all. In fact, the pandemic has been a boon for me. It has advanced my professional, personal and financial well being across the board. But that's only because I started from a place of relative privilege. It's quite probable that you were lucky to start from a place of personal privilege as well, and so didn't feel any real negative effects. I'm extremely uncomfortable with asking anyone to do anything for me to begin with, doubly so when it's going to cost them. What might be a small cost for me, could be proportionately a much bigger burden for them. When you're not feeling much of a pinch, it's easy to assume everyone else won't either. And if there's no pain, why the fuss? I get it. It's an easy and alluring thought. But there is a huge portion of our population who are not so fortunate. As a result of the policies of the last two years, they are now in real trouble that they may not be able to get out of. Personally, I'm not comfortable demanding that those people make sacrifices so that my granny (who is in her 90s) can improve her chances of not getting covid by a fraction of a percent, and I know for a fact that she wouldn't either.

[JerryRig]

With that in mind.....how about getting your vaccine shot. It might prevent longhaul covid. Something you really don't want.

Lol “long haul covid”. I respect you, Pelmet, but this priceless.

[photofly]

Of necessity I can't respond to every point you wrote, but let me pick a couple:

I find it hard to believe that our brightest minds couldn't have come up with a better approach.

"I find it hard to believe" is a trigger phrase. Whenever anyone says this, it's because they can't adduce a shred of evidence of something that the really want to be true. I believe Dawkins called it the argument from personal incredulity. "I can't believe that something as complicated as life could spontaneously arise, therefore God must exist."

To counter and balance out your disapproval, I absolutely can believe, that knowing what was known at the time, there was no more obviously correct approach that should have been chosen. I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

And this:

refusing to take an active preventative role in one's own health, and then demanding that other people undergo a medical intervention (that they may not want) on your behalf, is the height of hypocrisy. If you are a person who has never prioritized your own health, you simply cannot ask a stranger to prioritize your health equal to or higher than their own, without being a hypocrite. That is hypocritical by definition.

I don't agree that asking everyone to undertake a vaccine to protect everyone's health is either hypocritical or unreasonable. Regardless of my personal circumstances or risk.

[Invertago]

Disclaimer: I'm fully vaxed and pro-vaccine.

2 doses vs Delta was worth it. Boosters against Omnicron with more mild symptoms while most of the world has yet to receive their first dose is greedy by the wealthy countries. Plus, the vax is powerful medicine with potential side effects, the risk of side effects for the minuscule extra protection provided by a booster doesn't seem worth it.

Finally, since all the anti-vax people I've met do not appear to be sane rational individuals, I'm very hesitant to openly state my opinion against the need for a booster because I don't want to be associated with the loony bin anti-vax group with their great reset, microchips, communist conspiracy agendas. If the anti-vax crowd would just stop throwing shit at the wall and seeing what conspiracy would stick they might actually be taken seriously as it is, they probably shouldn't be at the controls of an aircraft not for their vaccine status but for their mental health issues.

[Vaticinator]

To counter and balance out your disapproval, I absolutely can believe, that knowing what was known at the time, there was no more obviously correct approach that should have been chosen. I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough. From reading your posts, I absolutely believe that you arrived at your position after critical examination of the facts, and that's great. However, I don't think most people are coming at this topic from the same critical place you are. This is one of the biggest things I take issue with. I think most have farmed out their critical thinking to popular opinion while simultaneously adopting their rather arbitrarily chosen new beliefs as unquestionable dogma. They actively attempt to silence any legitimate skepticism and debate that challenges their position. (Ask any scientist or academic if that's a good idea or if skepticism is legitimate and healthy.) They will twist words and misrepresent arguments in order to make those of us who are skeptical, seem like elderly-hating, eugenics believers. Suggesting that there might be a better way of doing things should not be a reason to silence people. Silencing skepticism reveals an illogical (or worse) emotional attachment to an ideology. And I believe that one of the major casualties in all of this has been our ability as a society to have legitimately open, meaningful, civilized and nuanced debate about topics that we should absolutely be having debate about.

With that in mind, and since you take issue with me saying "I can't believe" that there are no legitimate alternative options, I'll simply say that I believe that we could have done better for everyone, and that we could have protected the medically vulnerable while doing far less damage to the socially vulnerable. I believe that's not an unreasonable thing to say.

[ReserveTank]

That's the same with pretty much any disease: cancer, heart disease, etc. Using your logic, we could all but eliminate 90% of our health care system.

I would say ban harmful "food-like" products, cigarettes, and unnecessary prescription medicines. The cheap production and profit make them irresistible, and is a huge lobby. We are nearly powerless against these markets due to the profit from addiction. However, this is preferable to decimating what's left of the healthcare system, and in fact would reduce occupancy for pandemics.
In short, if we reduce factors which cause the comorbidities, then we only have age as a major factor. Much easier to manage.

Nope. What you need to do is gather a large amount of evidence, have the experience to weigh the evidence, and come to conclusions and recommendations. Like any vocation, this skill set requires a lot of schooling and experience. This is why we people spend years in school to get PhD's: because gathering scientific evidence is a very difficult task. Weighing everyone else's evidence is immeasurably more difficult.

In an honest world, I'd agree with you 100%. The problem is that our experts are all essentially for sale. This has been evident for a while now. Take a look at the financial crises of the past few decades...all experts guiding it, writing their books, appearing on TV, and creating impossible math formulae for home mortgages that only an ultra-genius could figure out. Same with war...our experts (connected to the arms industries) swore up and down that there were WMDs in Iraq. Of course, most followed their reasoning, so hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed, but much cash was made.
Every time there is a crisis, there are a batch of experts that are linked to the profit end. The era of credentials=honesty has long been over.

[Vaticinator]

Finally, since all the anti-vax people I've met do not appear to be sane rational individuals, I'm very hesitant to openly state my opinion against the need for a booster because I don't want to be associated with the loony bin anti-vax group with their great reset, microchips, communist conspiracy agendas.

This speaks volumes about the people who would consider a pro vax person who, in light of current data, is cautiously skeptical about the need for a booster, to be equivalent in their mind to a legitimate far out conspiracy theorist. It really is like a cult for some people.

[JerryRig]

I’m mildly amused the use of pro-vax vs anti or non-vax labels on a subject matter that is neither a vaccine (only an experimental gene therapy) nor is it safe or effective.

Honestly, blasting those who are trying to expose the truth to hypocrites don’t understand the difference. Is too plus two equal to fore? This is the level we are at right now.

[FL320]

Fact:
My uncle and 3 cousins all unvaccinated got covid 10 days ago and are all now 100% ok. symptoms were mild.
My neighbor got 3 Pfizer shots, was in a great shape 2 weeks ago, got covid 1 week ago, went to ICU and just passed away.
Conclusion: do not think you’re invincible with 3 shots ..

[BTD]

Fact:
My uncle and 3 cousins all unvaccinated got covid 10 days ago and are all now 100% ok. symptoms were mild.
My neighbor got 3 Pfizer shots, was in a great shape 2 weeks ago, got covid 1 week ago, went to ICU and just passed away.
Conclusion: do not think you’re invincible with 3 shots ..

Conclusion: don’t think you’re are invincible against anything.

Glad your relatives are better and I’m sorry to hear about your neighbour, but not much can be inferred from the anecdote.

Eg. Persons A,B and C were in car accidents not wearing seatbelts and all walked away.

Person D was in a car accident wearing their seatbelt and was killed.

Conclusion: standby. I need more info.

[JerryRig]

Fact:
My uncle and 3 cousins all unvaccinated got covid 10 days ago and are all now 100% ok. symptoms were mild.
My neighbor got 3 Pfizer shots, was in a great shape 2 weeks ago, got covid 1 week ago, went to ICU and just passed away.
Conclusion: do not think you’re invincible with 3 shots ..

THANK YOU FL320 For sharing this. I’m sorry for your loss.

[JerryRig]

Fact:
My uncle and 3 cousins all unvaccinated got covid 10 days ago and are all now 100% ok. symptoms were mild.
My neighbor got 3 Pfizer shots, was in a great shape 2 weeks ago, got covid 1 week ago, went to ICU and just passed away.
Conclusion: do not think you’re invincible with 3 shots ..

Conclusion: don’t think you’re are invincible against anything.

Glad your relatives are better and I’m sorry to hear about your neighbour, but not much can be inferred from the anecdote.

Eg. Persons A,B and C were in car accidents not wearing seatbelts and all walked away.

Person D was in a car accident wearing their seatbelt and was killed.

Conclusion: standby. I need more info.

This is the difference between knowledge and intelligence.