Whom does Hamilton shaft?

The City’s ethical dilemma

Vincent J. Curtis

21 May 22

RE: Doing the right thing on workplace vaccinations.  Spectator editorial 21 May 22.

The city does indeed have an ethical dilemma concerning the retention or dismissal of 440 city workers who refused vaccination.  That dilemma is: whom does the city screw?

Does it admit wrongly forcing the city staff to get injected with a worthless vaccine as a condition of retaining their jobs, or fire the 440 workers who refused to comply and proved to be right after all?  Does the city risk indiscipline the next time?

The editorial invokes the zombie chant “follow the science, follow the science” and adds a dash of “evidence-based” decisions.  This is unfortunate because the evidence is that the vaccines are essentially worthless to those under 65, and science involves, first and last, the empirical evidence - not hopes and expectations based on theory and models.

It is now common knowledge that the vaccines do not prevent infection and do not prevent transmission, does not induce herd immunity, and so there is little point in getting vaxxed as a prophylactic.  Based on Ontario’s own mortality data, a case simply can’t be made to vaccinate anyone prophylactically under the age of 60.  Besides this, there are small but non-zero risks to getting vaccinated, particularly pericarditis in young men, and these are becoming more widely known.

Poor Andrea Horwath is an example of the failure of the vaccine.  She’s vaxxed; she’s boosted, and she makes a show of wearing her little obedience mask in public.  Yet, she came down with COVID during the campaign.

The Spectator’s ethical argument recycles canards, and the question remains: whom dord Hamilton screw?

-30-