US gov't employees file suit against vax mandate

NCLA & TPPF File Class-Action Suit for Naturally Immune Fed. Employees Against Covid Vaccine Mandate | New Civil Liberties Alliance (press Release):

November 5, 2021 – "Federal workers with naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19 filed a class-action lawsuit today against their employer, the U.S. government, as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci and other members of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, the group designated to act as the intermediate enforcer of the executive order mandating that all federal employees get vaccinated. The lawsuit, James Joseph Rodden, et al. v. Dr. Anthony Fauci, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil liberties group, contends that the Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate violates employees’ constitutional and statutory rights. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational institution based in Austin, Texas, serves as co-counsel in the case.

"The named plaintiffs in this case are employed by government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Secret Service. All possess naturally acquired immunity as confirmed by recent SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and a medical expert. In addition to James Rodden, they include: Isaac McLaughlin, Gabriel Escoto, Michelle Morton, Waddie Jones, Ryan Biggers, Carole Mezzacapo, Edward Surgeon, Susan Reynolds, Roy Egbert, and George Gammon.

"The Executive Order issued by the Biden administration in September proclaims that 'it is necessary to require COVID-19 vaccination for all Federal employees' to halt the spread of the disease. NCLA argues the Vaccine Mandate undermines Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to bodily integrity and to decline medical treatment, and their statutory right to withhold informed consent. It conditions their employment on their willingness to take a vaccine that is medically unnecessary for them given their existing antibody levels. Their proof of antibodies demonstrates sufficient natural immunity to protect their co-workers as well or better than approved vaccines for COVID-19.

"The federal government does not consider employees fully vaccinated until two weeks after receiving a single-shot series or the second dose of a two-shot series. They must get the vaccine by November 8 to comply with the Vaccine Mandate. Those who do not comply with the looming, aggressive deadline face potential disciplinary action, including termination of employment. As established through their declarations, several experts attest that it is medically unnecessary for these individuals to undergo vaccination at this point. Though the COVID-19 vaccines appear to be relatively safe at a population level, they still carry a risk of side effects, including severe adverse reactions and even death in rare cases. And once administered, there is no way to un-vaccinate someone.

"Given naturally acquired immunity, the Federal Defendants cannot establish a compelling governmental interest in overriding Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and personal autonomy by making their continued employment contingent upon their receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. The Federal Vaccine Mandate also violates the Emergency Use Authorization law, which allows the government to authorize drugs that have not yet received full FDA approval and make them available to people who want them, on a strictly voluntary basis. The statute specifies that patients have a right to informed consent and to refuse administration of an EUA drug. But the Task Force has turned a permissive procedure to get possibly helpful drugs on the market in a crisis into an unlawful mandate.

"Plaintiffs request temporary and permanent injunctive relief from the Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate, and a declaratory judgment that the mandate infringes upon their constitutionally and statutorily protected rights'....

"For more information visit the case page here." 

Read more: https://nclalegal.org/2021/11/ncla-tppf-file-class-action-suit-for-naturally-immune-fed-employees-against-covid-vaccine-mandate/

Melbourne Australia's largest pandemic protest

‘KILL THE BILL’: Largest protest in Melbourne so far | Rebel News - Alexandra Marshall:

November 05, 2021 - "Thousands have marched through the streets of Melbourne towards Parliament in a major protest event. The crowd gathered on the steps of Parliament to protest the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 put forward by the Daniel Andrews government. 

"This is the largest crowd by far to assemble since the beginning of the pandemic, stretching beyond view in all directions. According to independent journalist Rukshan – who was on the ground covering the event live – the protest was ten times larger than the protest last weekend. Protesters promised to assemble next weekend with double the number.

"'Each one standing here is a hero,' said one protester, on the steps of Parliament. 'We shouldn’t have to be standing here. Each one of you is standing here giving away the livelihoods that they [the government] are taking away from us.' The crowd [chanted] 'Kill the Bill!' in between announcements.

"The ... new pandemic Bill ... has been described by lawyers as affording the Premier ‘indefinite dictatorial powers’ over the state of Victoria. It is expected that the Bill will pass with the support of Labor and some independent parties, including the Animal Justice Party, Reason Party, and the Greens....

"The protest moved peacefully through the street with police monitoring, rather than interacting, with the demonstrators.... 

"'There is an army of people here today to protect Australia,' said another protester, talking about the destruction of human rights in Victoria. Australian flags were flown upside down to show 'dire distress in an instance of extreme danger to life or property'.

"'Obviously the numbers of people are growing, who are prepared to show some courage,' said ex-policeman Craig Backman. 'The bullshit narrative is crumbling all over the world. They have been lying to us for two years. The virus is fear. The pandemic is greed. There's always someone who wants to rule the world.'

"In particular, the speakers rallied against Daniel Andrews discriminating against people based on their vaccination status, including the Premier's threats to 'lock them out of the economy' well into 2022.

"'The media needs to take a hard look at themselves, because they participated in betraying the people,' said Rukshan, talking about the portrayal of protesters in the mainstream media as 'far right'. There have been numerous attempts to discredit Freedom, anti-lockdown, and 'Kill the Bill' protesters in Victoria with Labor politicians going so far as to call them 'man-baby Nazis' when CFMEU [Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union] workers protested outside the CFMEU headquarters."

Read more: https://www.rebelnews.com/_kill_the_bill_largest_protest_in_melbourne_so_far

SIGN THE PETITION TO KILL THE BILL. 

Studies confirm Covid-vaccine protection waning

Study shows dramatic decline in effectiveness of all three COVID-19 vaccines over time | Los Angeles Times - Melissa Healystaff:

November 4, 2021 - "As the Delta variant became the dominant strain of the coronavirus across the United States, all three COVID-19 vaccines available to Americans lost some of their protective power, with vaccine efficacy among a large group of veterans dropping between 35% and 85%, according to a new study. Researchers who scoured the records of nearly 800,000 U.S. veterans found that in early March ... the three vaccines were roughly equal in their ability to prevent infections. But over the next six months, that changed dramatically.

• By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
• The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.
• And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months. 

"The findings were published Thursday in the journal Science.

"The three vaccines held up better in their ability to prevent COVID-19 deaths, but by July — as the Delta variant began to drive a three-month surge of infections and deaths — the shots’ effectiveness on that score also revealed wide gaps. 

• Among veterans 65 and older who were inoculated with the Moderna vaccine, those who developed a so-called breakthrough infection were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated veterans of the same age. 
• Older veterans who got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and subsequently experienced a breakthrough infection were 70% less likely to die than were their unvaccinated peers. 
• And when older vets who got a single jab of the J&J vaccine suffered a breakthrough infection, they were 52% less likely to die than their peers who didn’t get any shots.

"For veterans younger than 65, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provided the best protection against a fatal case of COVID-19, at 84% and 82%, respectively. When younger veterans inoculated with the J&J vaccine suffered a breakthrough infection, they were 73% less likely to die of COVID-19 than were their unvaccinated peers."

Read more: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows-dramatic-decline-in-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines

Read study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620

Covid: How long does vaccine based immunity last? | Sebastian Rushworth MD: 

November 5, 2021 - "It’s unfortunate that the drug companies decided to end their trials early, by giving active covid vaccine to the members of the placebo group after just a few months.... This means that we are instead forced to rely entirely on observational data as we try to understand how safe and effective the vaccines are over the longer term. That is why a recent study out of Sweden is so very interesting. It is currently available as a preprint.... The purpose of the study was to determine how effective the vaccines are at protecting against covid over the longer term.... 

"The authors of the study began by identifying all people residing in Sweden who had been fully vaccinated against covid-19 by late May 2021 [who] were then matched individually against people of the same age and gender, and living in the same municipality, who hadn’t been vaccinated. In total, 1,684,958 individuals were included in the study. They were followed until October to see if they developed covid-19....

"[T]he vaccines were very effective at preventing symptomatic covid around two months out from vaccination. This is what the randomized trials showed.... Overall, the reduction in relative risk at 31-60 days out from vaccination was 89%. However, after those first two months, there was a rapid decline in efficacy. At four to six months, the vaccines were only reducing the relative risk of infection by 48%!... One vaccine did still provide a better than 50% relative risk reduction at six months – the Moderna vaccine. At four to six months, the relative risk reduction with the Moderna vaccine was 71%. Pfizer was at the same time point only offering a 47% reduction in risk, and AstraZeneca was at that point not doing anything whatsoever to lower risk....

"By the nine month mark, the Pfizer vaccine is no longer offering any protection whatsoever against symptomatic covid-19. Unfortunately, nine month out data isn’t offered for the Moderna vaccine due to the small number of people for whom that information is currently available, but at six months out, the Moderna vaccine’s ability to prevent symptomatic covid-19 had dropped to only 59%. So there is a continuous decline in effectiveness at each time point measured even for the Moderna vaccine, without any sign of levelling off....

"People over the age of 80 initially show a good response to the vaccine, with a 73% reduction in relative risk of disease at one to two months out from vaccination. However this drops to only 50% at two to four months, and by six months there is no benefit whatsoever. Even for the middle aged (50-64 years) ... the vaccines are completely ineffective at preventing symptomatic disease by the four to six months mark. The only group for whom the vaccines are more than 50% effective by the four month mark is people under the age of 50 (for whom effectiveness at four to six months is 51%)....

"At one to two months out from vaccination, the vaccines provided a 91% reduction in risk of hospitalization or death. By four to six months, that had dropped to 74%. And from six months out, the reduction was down to 42%, although the difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated group was no longer statistically significant. In other words, at the six month time point it was no longer possible to detect a statistically significant effect of vaccination on risk of hospitalization or death....

"As I see it, there are two possible explanations for the rapidly declining effectiveness of the vaccines. The first is that it’s due to ... the vaccines themselves, and the second is that it’s due to ... the rise of the delta variant. If the second reason is true, then there is no reason whatsoever to give people boosters, because the boosters won’t do anything to improve immunity. If the first reason is true, then there is a case to be made for boosters, although it feels pretty absurd to give everyone a booster every four months to protect against a virus that for most people is little more than a cold.... There is however a pretty good case to be made for regular boosting of the multi-morbid elderly every four months, preferentially with the Moderna vaccine....

"The vaccines are much less effective than was initially believed, and effectiveness declines rapidly. With that being the case, the idea that it’s going to be possible for countries to vaccinate themselves out of the pandemic is clearly nonsense. The only way the pandemic ends is by enough people getting infected and developing natural immunity, which is the same way every prior respiratory virus pandemic has ended."

Read more: https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/11/05/covid-how-long-does-vaccine-based-immunity-last/

Read study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

UK government split over NHS Covid-vax mandate

NHS staff should be forced to have the jab BEFORE winter says former Health Secretary Matt Hancock as his successor Sajid Javid plans to delay law until April | Daily Mail - Luke Andrews: 

7 November 7, 2021 - "NHS workers should be forced to get two doses of the Covid vaccine before winter, disgraced former Health Secretary Matt Hancock said today. Mr Hancock — who quit in June after breaching his own social distancing rules by kissing a married colleague — said the move would act as another 'tool to save lives' during what is projected to be a harsh winter for the health service. He also scorned NHS staff who are still not vaccinated and don't have a valid medical reason, warning that it was their 'moral duty' and that they had 'ignored all the scientific and clinical advice'.

"Ministers have for weeks been considering whether to make Covid jabs compulsory within the health service after pushing through the requirement for care home workers in the summer. But last week the Health Secretary Sajid Javid appeared to push back the plans until April after being warned by NHS bosses that introducing the policy now could leave hospitals understaffed at a crucial period. There are also concerns about whether the move is even necessary, given that more than nine in 10 NHS staff are already vaccinated.

"Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Hancock, who was Health Secretary for three years, warned ministers against delaying compulsory vaccinations for the sector into the new year. He said: 'Having looked at all the evidence, I am now convinced we must require vaccination for everyone who works not just in social care but the NHS — and get it in place as fast as possible... So as we prepare to a face a difficult winter, let's use all the tools we have to save lives'.... Mr Hancock said doctors and nurses had a 'moral duty' to get the Covid vaccine to protect their patients.

"A SAGE adviser said today it was a 'general standard of hygiene' for anyone in a frontline role in contact with vulnerable patients to be double-vaccinated against Covid. But they stopped short of calling for jabs to be made compulsory, saying this should only be done as a 'last resort'. 

"All care home workers will be required to have had two doses of the Covid vaccine from Thursday or lose their jobs, under a policy brought in while Mr Hancock was Health Secretary."

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10176229/NHS-staff-forced-jab-winter-says-former-Health-Secretary-Matt-Hancock.html

Some 100,000 NHS workers are yet to get at least one dose of the Covid vaccine. The above graph shows the

percentage that have got their first dose (blue line) and the percentage with both doses (orange line) - Daily Mail

Vaxxers and anti-vaxxers

 Vaxxers and anti-vaxxers

by George J. Dance

As a Covid libertarian, I have often been called an "anti-vaxxer" on social media. By "Covid libertarian" I mean that I am a libertarian when it comes to Covid. Being a libertarian just means holding the basic libertarian belief (that it is prime facie wrong to force or coerce other people), and since a person can believe that on one issue but not on another, a person (whether they identify as a libertarian or not) can be a libertarian or not on a particular issue. A Covid libertarian is one who applies that belief to Covid as a political issue, i.e. to government policy during and regarding the Covid pandemic. 

Covid libertarians, then, oppose government mandates, whether the government is mandating lockdowns, business and church closings, mask wearing, or vaccination. They can have various beliefs about the value of staying home, avoiding contact, wearing masks, or being vaccinated during a pandemic. For the record, and for what it's worth, I believe all four of the latter have value. What defines a Covid libertarian is a lack of belief that those things' value is a reason to ignore libertarian principles and human rights, and go with force and coercion instead. 

But what is an "anti-vaxxer"? And whom or what are they "anti"? It turns out the term has two definitions. Historically, it has referred to the view of a small minority that opposes vaccination, whatever the reason, and refuses to be vaccinated, a meaning best summed up in the Oxford English Dictionary definition: "a person who is opposed to vaccination, especially a parent who does not wish to vaccinate their child because they believe it could be harmful.".(1) The word has had that meaning since 1812, when Edward Jenner coined it to describe opponents of his cowpox vaccine.(2) I am certainly not one of those. Vaccination can help protect one from injury, death, and even disease, depending on the disease and the vaccine, which strikes me as a good reason to be vaccinated. 

But there is another definition of "anti-vaxxer," which has been around since at least 2008, and its use has increased exponentially during the Covid pandemic. In 2018 that definition was added to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "a person who opposes the use of vaccines OR regulations mandating vaccination."[stress added](3) By that definition I am an anti-vaxxer, because I oppose vaccine mandates. 

The Merriam-Webster (MW) definition looks like an example of what Ayn Rand called "package dealing", or "the fallacy of ... treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or 'package,' elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value."(4) As with Rand's original example of the fallacy – the early 1960s media crusade against "extremism" – that fallacy is often used to demonize a group through guilt by association with an already demonized group. That is exactly how the word has come to be used during the pandemic; but, as was noted on Quora as early as 2018, the term was already a pejorative before that:  

There are dictionary definitions of anti-vaxxers, but there is no agreement. The reason is simple. Most of the use of the word anti-vaxxer is by people who are against vaccine choices, who see and label their opposition “anti-vaxxer”.... Dictionary com gives a simple, and more accurate definition “(slang, derogatory) An anti-vaccinationist.” Wictionary org gives a very similar, accurate definition: “(slang, derogatory) An anti-vaccinationist. ”
"Both definitions make the important point clear. The important part of the definition of an anti-vaxxer is not the meaning of the term ... anti-vaxxer is a negative, derogatory, slang term. It is used to insult people, to put them, their understanding, their ideas, their research, and everything about them and their friends into the “negative” box.... Anti-vaxxer is a contemptuous term for anyone who challenges any vaccine or vaccination information or dogma. It is also a contemptuous term for anyone who might listen to such a person, try to understand their position, or even dare to befriend them in any way.
In general the term anti-vaxxer is used by people who are anti-anti-vaxxer, who want to dismiss, insult, or worse, people who wish to make informed medical choices for themselves and their children. People who are anti-anti-vaxxers extend the term anti-vaxxer to anyone who makes the slightest challenge, question, or suggestion that vaccines are not akin to God.... The term anti-vaxxer is used to describe someone who is so bad that no further analysis is attempted. 
This is clearly seen in some of the more ridiculous definitions. Here’s the top version from UrbanDictionary.... “A person who thinks they know more about medicine and public health than the overwhelming majority of doctors, scientists, immunologists, and every major health organization across the whole entire planet. ‘Pfffft, I don't need to believe in "evidence based medicine" & fancy "science" made up by sheeple and shills! I'm an arrogant anti-vaxxer!’”
and another from UrbanDictionary of similar style[:] "A particularly toxic kind of narcissist who places their own science illiterate beliefs in woo over the welfare of their own children and that of the general population. "Oh great, another measles outbreak, thanks to those dumbass anti-vaxxers."
Note: Attempting to create an honest definition of “anti-vaxxer” is likely to have yourself labelled as one." (5) 

So the term has always been a smear, an ad hominem used to label and discredit some people's beliefs by attacking the people rather than dealing with the beliefs. But now, thanks to Merriam-Webster, I have been successfully labelled with it as well. But if I am to be defined and labelled by anyone (and with such a term!) , I should at least be allowed to define and label them in return.

Who has defined and labelled me this way? The Quora article calls them 'people who are anti-anti-vaxxers,' which gets our essential opposition across, but is way too long for a label. Therefore, I propose coining my own word – "vaxxer" (which I am claiming because I have failed to find any prior use) – and defining it as someone who believes the opposite of MW's anti-vaxxer:

Vaxxer: "a person who supports the use of vaccines AND regulations mandating vaccination." (stress added)

By this definition, everyone (with an opinion) is either a vaxxer or an anti-vaxxer, and no one is both. 

Let there be no confusion: "Vaxxer" does simply mean being pro-vaccination. It does not mean someone who gets vaccinated, or who supports or encourages vaccination: someone like me who does both of the latter, but opposes vaccine mandates, is an anti-vaxxer by MW's definition, and therefore not a vaxxer by mine. To make the distinction: Someone who is pro-vaccination is interested in getting vaccinated, and in letting or helping others get vaccinated; a vaxxer simply wants to vaccinate all of them. Like Caesar, who wanted the whole world to be taxed, vaxxers want the whole world to be vaxxed. They want a society where everyone is vaccinated. If possible, they would simply grab and jab them all, with or without their consent. Barring the legal power to do so, they advocate forcibly segregating the unvaccinated, excluding them from society as much as possible, entirely if they could. 

By the above definitions – MW's and mine – I am definitely, and defiantly, an "anti-vaxxer". I am not opposed to vaccination; but I am opposed to vaxxers and their schemes. Whether the scheme is to vaccinate everyone to get "herd immunity," or to get rid of the virus entirely, the effect is the same: Government power is being used to coerce people, to police everyone, to harass and stigmatize a minority, and to violate human rights. While some anti-vaxxers may pose some danger to me, some risk of infection, so does everyone else, including the Covid-vaccinated; that is something I have been able to deal with by social distancing, by sometime mask-wearing, and now by getting vaccinated myself. I see far more real danger from vaxxers and their plans, both to me and to my society, and no good way (other than vocal opposition) to deal with that risk.

References (accessed Nov. 6-7, 2021

(1) "Definition of anti-vaxxer," Oxford Learners' Dictionaries. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/anti-vaxxer

(2) Ruki Sayid, "Anti-vaxxer, willy-waver and Wagwan among new words in Oxford Dictionary - see list." Daily Mirror, Sept. 10, 2021. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-vaxxer-willy-waver-wagwan-24951465

(3) "Definition of anti-vaxxer," Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer 

(4) "Package-dealing, fallacy of," Ayn Rand Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-dealing,_fallacy_of.html

(5) Tracy Kolenchuk, "What is the exact definition of an anti-vaxxer? Does it mean someone who opposes some vaccines, all vaccines, or only mandatory vaccines?", Quora, Aug. 27, 2018. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-exact-definition-of-an-anti-vaxxer-Does-it-mean-someone-who-opposes-some-vaccines-all-vaccines-or-only-mandatory-vaccines/answer/Tracy-Kolenchuk 

Canadian lawyers foresee wave of terminations

Canada faces wave of terminations as workplace vaccine mandates take effect: lawyer | CTV News - Brett Bundale, Canadian Press:

October 7, 2021 - " Canada is facing a potential wave of terminations tied to mandatory workplace vaccine policies as a growing number of employers require workers to be fully inoculated against COVID-19 - or risk losing their jobs, legal experts say.... As employer deadlines to be fully vaccinated approach, unvaccinated workers could soon be placed on unpaid leave or terminated altogether, lawyers say....

"'We've been contacted by thousands of people from across Canada who all have these ultimatums in front of them saying they have to be vaccinated by a certain date or risk losing their jobs,' employment lawyer Lior Samfiru, a partner with Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, said in an interview. 'We're going to see the biggest wave of terminations we've seen since the pandemic started,' he said, noting that his firm has been contacted by workers in a range of industries including health care, education, banks, construction and restaurants....

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled Canada's new mandatory vaccine policy on Wednesday [October 6]. It requires the core public service, air travel and rail employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by the end of October. The federal vaccine mandate mirrors provincial policies, such as in Nova Scotia where all school and health-care workers are required to have two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of November.

"Private companies have also developed corporate vaccine mandates, with looming deadlines for staff to be fully vaccinated. The situation has left legal experts grappling with the tension between protecting the rights of individual workers and ensuring employers meet their health and safety obligations toward staff, clients and the public. There's also the question of what reasonable accommodations or exemptions should be available to workers and whether unvaccinated employees who are ultimately terminated are owed compensation.

"'There's an overriding obligation on the employer to make sure the workplace is safe,” said Ron Pizzo, a labour and employment lawyer with Pink Larkin in Halifax.... Pizzo said his firm is getting quite a few calls from people who do not want to vaccinate and want to fight employer vaccination requirements. Still, he said he's not expecting mass resignations that will leave companies without enough workers given the relatively high vaccination rate among the general population. Slightly more than 80 per cent of all Canadians aged 12 and older are fully vaccinated....

"Wayne MacKay, professor emeritus at the Dalhousie Schulich School of Law, said employers have to balance the individual rights of workers, such as by offering reasonable accommodations, with maintaining a safe work environment. But he said a recent review of cases involving the balance between individual rights and public health have sided with the latter.... 'Most restrictions that governments are doing have been found to be reasonable given threat of COVID-19.' While these cases didn't deal specifically with vaccine mandates, he said the same reasoning would likely apply....

"As for whether workers who are terminated for refusing to vaccinate are entitled to compensation, he said it depends on the work environment, how valid the need for the policy is and whether the worker was unionized or not.

"Samfiru suggested terminated workers who are not paid sufficient compensation could claim wrongful dismissal. 'The employer is imposing a new rule, one that was not part of the original employment agreement,' he said. 'That becomes a termination without cause and severance has to be paid. Beyond that, there could be a human rights claim as well.'"

Read more: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canada-faces-wave-of-terminations-as-workplace-vaccine-mandates-take-effect-lawyer-1.5614688

Blood thinners cut Covid deaths almost in half

Blood thinners can reduce COVID-19 deaths by nearly half, study finds | CTV News - Anthony Vasquez-Peddie:

October 3, 2021 - "The use of blood thinners by COVID-19 patients, either before being infected with the disease or afterward, can reduce deaths by almost half, according to new research. The study, published in the open-access, peer-reviewed journal EClinicalMedicine, looked at ways to reduce clotting and hospitalizations related to COVID-19 through the use of prescribed blood thinners.

"'We know that COVID-19 causes blood clots that can kill patients,' Dr. Sameh Hozayen, lead author of the study and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said in a news release.... 'Blood thinners are medications prescribed to prevent blood clots in patients with a prior blood clot in their lungs or legs. They also prevent blood clots in the brain secondary to abnormal heart rhythms, like atrial fibrillation. Blood thinners are the standard of treatment in these diseases, which is why we looked at data to see if it impacted hospitalizations related to COVID-19'.... 

"The study also found that patients on blood thinners before contracting the virus were admitted less often to hospital despite being older on average and suffering from more chronic medical conditions than their peers.

"The study evaluated 6,195 adult COVID-19 patients, including 598 who were immediately hospitalized and 5,597 who were treated as outpatients, between March 4 and Aug. 28, 2020. Among the outpatients, 160 were already on blood thinners, and 331 were eventually hospitalized. Outpatients who were on blood thinners at the time of diagnosis had a 43 per cent reduced risk of hospitalization. Hospitalized patients also benefitted from blood thinners regardless of the type or dose of medication used.

"Most medical centres around the world currently have protocols for starting COVID-19 patients on blood thinners upon hospital admission, according to Dr. Hozayen. It’s easy to keep track of prescription drug use while in hospital, but among those who have previously been prescribed blood thinners and may want to benefit from this study, one of the challenges is getting them to adhere to their drug regimen.

"'Unfortunately, about half of patients who are being prescribed blood thinners for blood clots in their legs, lungs, abnormal heart rhythms or other reasons do not take them. By increasing adherence for people already prescribed blood thinners, we can potentially reduce the bad effects of COVID-19,' he said. 'Outside of COVID-19, the use of blood thinners is proven to be lifesaving for those with blood coagulations conditions.'"

Read more: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/blood-thinners-can-reduce-covid-19-deaths-by-nearly-half-study-finds-1.5609242 

Read study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537021004193