[munk-a]

That seems like a great example of the FFA getting out of the way of the necessary. Pandemic times are when rules need to be more flexible since we're responding to non-standard conditions.

If that rule wasn't waved pilots would need to chose between being more vulnerable to the pandemic vs. getting to draw an income for a year - that seems a lot worse than some rules being temporarily ignored.

[willmadden]

Except it wasn't necessary based on the data. It was necessary based on political pressure from our owners.

[munk-a]

First off given that we're in the middle of a pandemic and the vaccine was promoted to keep everyone safe - please stop spreading misinformation about vaccination.

Secondly, regardless of efficacy, most people thought it was necessary for their health and the health of others - so you're placing most level headed people in a position where they would need to chose between declining a completely beneficial treatment or else lose their livelihood.

Lastly, I don't know how it works where you live but up here in Canada I feel distinctly unowned by anyone.

[willmadden]

"Misinformation"?

I have been an avid collector of scientific studies about COVID, COVID vaccination, repurposed therapeutics, and PCR test accuracy since 2020. Would you like me to share some of this "misinformation"? You might find it enlightening.

[8note]

That's protecting the one pilot in exchange for whatever is on the plane in terms of risk.

[munk-a]

So do we as a society prefer to have no flights for a year probably including cargo planes - while providing income relief/subsidies to those pilots or do we expect those pilots to go without vaccination and force them to endure a higher mortality rate from COVID?

[landemva]

Cardiac problems with the vaccines are being discovered and cause sudden issues. I would prefer following written rules or changing the rules, instead of ignoring rules.