Letter: Benefits of vaccinations significantly outweigh risks
By Letter to the Editor on November 16, 2021.
Dear editor, In response to my Nov. 9 letter defending mask and vaccination mandates, Terry Zachary says I used “a strawman argument,” distorting what Judi Coombes said about masks. Ms. Coombes’ first refers to masks in general. Mr. Zachary says she was not referring to surgical masks, but she did not say that. When I cited surgical masks as proof contrary to her argument, there was no distracting “strawman,” I was responding to exactly what she said. Ms. Coombes goes on to say “the masks we are wearing,” here clearly meaning face masks that are not surgical quality. The CDC calls these “source controls,” saying “they prevent the spread of respiratory secretions.” Face masks may not be 100% effective, but even a tiny amount of prevention of spread may make a big difference. If a person is unaware of being infected with COVID-19, and wearing a face mask can protect other people, including veterans who fought for our freedom, whom both Ms. Coombes and Mr. Zachary refer to, it is a small price to pay. If it saves lives, bring on the mandate. Mr. Zachary goes on to argue that adverse reactions to vaccines (documented on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database) give reason to oppose vaccine mandates. Even VAERS itself states that its system “is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem,” meaning its data is questionable. So much for credible support. Admittedly vaccines are not 100% safe, but if the benefits of vaccination sufficiently outweigh the risks, as our public health officers have determined they do, and lives are saved and needless suffering eliminated, then again, a little loss of freedom is a small price to pay. Bring on the mandate. Michael Seitz Medicine Hat 10-9
My late parents spent countless hours volunteering for the Lougheed and Getty governments. A brother in-law in his spare time voluntarily flew the government plane for them. Lougheed’s energy minister Bill Dickie was a brother in-law of one of my uncles. My father donated around $30,000. to their party and Klein almost killed him with his health care cuts.
Yet here you are one these ignorant seniors who won’t believe what true conservatives tell but believe every lie this Liberal turned Reformer in Jason Kenney feeds you and the true conservatives are calling you a Traitor for not helping us kick out Kenney and defend what Lougheed created for us, right?
You don’t care who Kenney killed by not listening to our doctors and you don’t care what kenney has done to this province by slashing corporate taxes by $9.4 billion to benefit his rich friends or that Ralph Klein dumped this Orphan Clean up mess on our laps.
Would you be able to prove in court that I’m not a conservative and a liar, would you like to try?
F.U.C: My comments were about critical thinking, not rational thinking. Critical thinking demands hearing all points of view and thinking critically. I’m so surprised someone could argue those 2 actions. The fact that Mr. Seitz said Judi’s comments were in any way to be brought into a surgical setting is funny. IT is a strawman. She did not comment about whether masks should be used in surgery. Even if this person did look at any surgery mask research, he would quickly find studies that show no benefit. They are used to protect the surgeon from fluids. Doesn’t sound rational, but it’s a result of both sides and critical thinking. Mr. Seitz applies rational thinking.
FedUC… If you are comfortable with Mr. Seitz conclusion ‘so much for credible support’ in reference to the VAERS report, you’re also straying from ‘both sides and critical thought.’ as is he. VAERS has always been a reference for noticing dangerous patterns. I’ll leave it up to you and Mr. Seitz to see if they notice any dangerous patterns recently. Dismissing the VAERS system is not even worth a response, but a Harvard Health School study concluded that less than 1% of adverse events are even reported. That’s a study not an opinion. It is very valid information unless you don’t want to look at both sides. Mr. Seitz is wrong about VAERS.
They won’t post my response to Mr. Seitz’s reply. Maybe they don’t like the real-time statistics. VAERS reporting dismissed tells me a lot about people’s ability to look at both sides.