DocLightning wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

That "was" the prevailing opinion, "science in this matter" actually differs.

If you can show me a juried, peer-reviewed article that demonstrates this, then yes.

Video description has links to several studies. Not sure those are juried and/or peer-reviewed.

Let me ask the same question.

Coronavirus has been there for more than a century, SARS V1 has been studied for 20 years.
First COVID-19 vaccine was administered to humans on July 27, 2020.
How did experts come up with the theory that synthetic immunity lasts longer than natural immunity?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668444/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 8.416636v1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/heal ... cines.html

I think anti-vaxxers are less than 5% of population. If they want to die, it is their personal choice.
Rest of the hesitancy is either fear of needles (or) the way development, testing and EUA rushed compared all previous vaccines.
Both can be addressed without offering free dates or rides

Offer nasal spray, vaccination rates will jump by 15%(personal opinion)
FDA full approval another 10% (personal opinion)

Offering weed(Washington), Lotto(Ohio), Trucks and Guns(West Virginia), Krispy Kreme donuts, free lamination and even a date with Fauci is not going to reduce hesitancy.

DocLightning wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Forcing people to take the vaccine is a crime imho.

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They can make a choice. 1) Get the vaccine 2) Get a different job.

Methodist is the hospital where everyone wants to work. Good culture. Good pay. Good resources for patient care. You don't have a fundamental right to work there (or anywhere, really). If you want to work in healthcare but don't want to get vaccinated, then go find somewhere else.

There is disagree. For health care professionals the same basic analysis of risks and rewards for each person should be made. And any employee that can show that the risks of the vaccine are greater then the risk of the illness, should not be fired. Obviously for most persons and when using Moderna or Biontech it will be difficult to show this, but on the other hand it might be different when the vaccine is AZ and the person is a young female.

seahawk wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Forcing people to take the vaccine is a crime imho.

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They can make a choice. 1) Get the vaccine 2) Get a different job.

Methodist is the hospital where everyone wants to work. Good culture. Good pay. Good resources for patient care. You don't have a fundamental right to work there (or anywhere, really). If you want to work in healthcare but don't want to get vaccinated, then go find somewhere else.

There is disagree. For health care professionals the same basic analysis of risks and rewards for each person should be made. And any employee that can show that the risks of the vaccine are greater then the risk of the illness, should not be fired. Obviously for most persons and when using Moderna or Biontech it will be difficult to show this, but on the other hand it might be different when the vaccine is AZ and the person is a young female.

Houston Methodist has 22,000+ employees. Their HR department is likely 50 people or less. The type of analysis you're describing will never happen at an employer this large - it's costly and impractical given the situation.

DocLightning wrote:

If you want to work in healthcare but don't want to get vaccinated, then go find somewhere else.

There is no exact analogy so pardon me for giving an off-topic example but if FAA certifies a new type with 3 1/2 month testing, general public may fly but there will be hesitation within the aviation community.

dtw2hyd wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

If you want to work in healthcare but don't want to get vaccinated, then go find somewhere else.

There is no exact analogy so pardon me for giving an off-topic example but if FAA certifies a new type with 3 1/2 month testing, general public may fly but there will be hesitation within the aviation community.

The general public doesn't risk vulnerable people. My relative's hospital had one person expose six cancer patients to Delta, three will die; you can treat the cancer or coronavirus, not both.

On one hand, we need to stop focusing so much health care on the virus. On the other so many are unvaccinated we will continue to have waves of this virus. With the prior staff exhausted and finally getting their summer vacations, all staff might be called into the coronavirus wards. There cannot be any accomodation beyond the groups they must: over age 65, pregnant/recent birth, cancer, kidney, immnio deficient.

At my relative's hospital they are looking for the first time into staffing a 3rd coronavirus ward. That means shutting down colonoscopies and mammograms to pull the staff. They cannot accommodate just because someone avoided the needle.

These vaccines were first given emergency approvals 5 months ago.

I personally think the OSHA law didn't go far enough. e.g., all essential employees should have been covered.

Lightsaber

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They can make a choice. 1) Get the vaccine 2) Get a different job.

Methodist is the hospital where everyone wants to work. Good culture. Good pay. Good resources for patient care. You don't have a fundamental right to work there (or anywhere, really). If you want to work in healthcare but don't want to get vaccinated, then go find somewhere else.

There is disagree. For health care professionals the same basic analysis of risks and rewards for each person should be made. And any employee that can show that the risks of the vaccine are greater then the risk of the illness, should not be fired. Obviously for most persons and when using Moderna or Biontech it will be difficult to show this, but on the other hand it might be different when the vaccine is AZ and the person is a young female.

Houston Methodist has 22,000+ employees. Their HR department is likely 50 people or less. The type of analysis you're describing will never happen at an employer this large - it's costly and impractical given the situation.

Well, it would be down to the employee to show why the vaccination is an undue risk. In the worst case the person could be allergic to one ingredient and likely to suffer a anaphylactic shock, in such case it would imho not be commensurate to accept the vaccine or loose the job.

seahawk wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

There is disagree. For health care professionals the same basic analysis of risks and rewards for each person should be made. And any employee that can show that the risks of the vaccine are greater then the risk of the illness, should not be fired. Obviously for most persons and when using Moderna or Biontech it will be difficult to show this, but on the other hand it might be different when the vaccine is AZ and the person is a young female.

Houston Methodist has 22,000+ employees. Their HR department is likely 50 people or less. The type of analysis you're describing will never happen at an employer this large - it's costly and impractical given the situation.

Well, it would be down to the employee to show why the vaccination is an undue risk. In the worst case the person could be allergic to one ingredient and likely to suffer a anaphylactic shock, in such case it would imho not be commensurate to accept the vaccine or loose the job.

Federal and state laws already make allowances for employees to refuse employer requests like this if they have valid medical or religious reasons. But evidence must be presented to the employer for those claims to stick. You cannot simply say 'I am allergic to vaccine ingredient xyz' - you need a letter from a primary care physician. This is how legitimate and frivolous claims are weeded out - most people will only go to the trouble of documentation if they have a valid exemption. Anyone else is a liar or has an agenda.

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Houston Methodist has 22,000+ employees. Their HR department is likely 50 people or less. The type of analysis you're describing will never happen at an employer this large - it's costly and impractical given the situation.

Well, it would be down to the employee to show why the vaccination is an undue risk. In the worst case the person could be allergic to one ingredient and likely to suffer a anaphylactic shock, in such case it would imho not be commensurate to accept the vaccine or loose the job.

Federal and state laws already make allowances for employees to refuse employer requests like this if they have valid medical or religious reasons. But evidence must be presented to the employer for those claims to stick. You cannot simply say 'I am allergic to vaccine ingredient xyz' - you need a letter from a primary care physician. This is how legitimate and frivolous claims are weeded out - most people will only go to the trouble of documentation if they have a valid exemption. Anyone else is a liar or has an agenda.

As I said, I am not supporting that law suit, but I am also not supporting a forced vaccination, that does not take valid(!!) reasons against the vaccination into account. The lawsuit offered no valid reasons. But then you could imagine there would be a vaccine, only recommended for use by persons over 50, that can be used on younger persons, if they agree. In that case an employer should never be in a position to force the employees to take the vaccine. This is not the case in the US though.

And as far as I know the US has an ample supply of vaccines with no such limitations. Other countries do have a limited supply and limitations on the use of some vaccines.

seahawk wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Well, it would be down to the employee to show why the vaccination is an undue risk. In the worst case the person could be allergic to one ingredient and likely to suffer a anaphylactic shock, in such case it would imho not be commensurate to accept the vaccine or loose the job.

Federal and state laws already make allowances for employees to refuse employer requests like this if they have valid medical or religious reasons. But evidence must be presented to the employer for those claims to stick. You cannot simply say 'I am allergic to vaccine ingredient xyz' - you need a letter from a primary care physician. This is how legitimate and frivolous claims are weeded out - most people will only go to the trouble of documentation if they have a valid exemption. Anyone else is a liar or has an agenda.

As I said, I am not supporting that law suit, but I am also not supporting a forced vaccination, that does not take valid(!!) reasons against the vaccination into account. The lawsuit offered no valid reasons. But then you could imagine there would be a vaccine, only recommended for use by persons over 50, that can be used on younger persons, if they agree. In that case an employer should never be in a position to force the employees to take the vaccine. This is not the case in the US though.

Okay...but a 'forced' vaccination is not germane to this story's discussion, now is it?

lightsaber wrote:

The general public doesn't risk vulnerable people.

Lightsaber

Agree 100% with you, but same health care workers risked their lives when nothing was available, including PPE.

Pfizer/Moderna got federal indemnity, private hospitals got liability protections under state emergency laws, but HCWs who risked their lives will get pink slips. Something is off.

dtw2hyd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The general public doesn't risk vulnerable people.

Lightsaber

Agree 100% with you, but same health care workers risked their lives when nothing was available, including PPE.

Pfizer/Moderna got federal indemnity, private hospitals got liability protections under state emergency laws, but HCWs who risked their lives will get pink slips. Something is off.

Pretty simple - noncompliance with policy has consequences.

Aaron747 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The general public doesn't risk vulnerable people.

Lightsaber

Agree 100% with you, but same health care workers risked their lives when nothing was available, including PPE.

Pfizer/Moderna got federal indemnity, private hospitals got liability protections under state emergency laws, but HCWs who risked their lives will get pink slips. Something is off.

Pretty simple - noncompliance with policy has consequences.

Let me rephrase, non-compliance by corporations get legal protections, non-compliance by individual gets pink slip.

No one could sue hospitals for making DNR/DNAR decisions on their own in COVID wards, without consent from loved ones.
No one could sue Pfizer/Moderna god forbid if there is any side effect.

One No from employee, show the door.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Agree 100% with you, but same health care workers risked their lives when nothing was available, including PPE.

Pfizer/Moderna got federal indemnity, private hospitals got liability protections under state emergency laws, but HCWs who risked their lives will get pink slips. Something is off.

Pretty simple - noncompliance with policy has consequences.

Let me rephrase, non-compliance by corporations get legal protections, non-compliance by individual gets pink slip.

No one could sue hospitals for making DNR/DNAR decisions on their own in COVID wards, without consent from loved ones.
No one could sue Pfizer/Moderna god forbid if there is any side effect.

One No from employee, show the door.

At face value that looks like an issue, but it's two different things. Overbroad indemnity came about from hasty executive/legislative decisions - private organizations making decisions regarding their employee groups is something else that happens routinely.

dtw2hyd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The general public doesn't risk vulnerable people.

Lightsaber

Agree 100% with you, but same health care workers risked their lives when nothing was available, including PPE.

Pfizer/Moderna got federal indemnity, private hospitals got liability protections under state emergency laws, but HCWs who risked their lives will get pink slips. Something is off.

At my relative's hospital, only one person who served in the coronavirus wards isn't vaccinated. They had medical staff have coronavirus induced heart attacks, but all of those people are now vaccinated.

Now they need more staff in the coronavirus wards and the unvaccinated are refusing to do their job, I already listed those excuses. How is that fair?

The Unvaccinated are 10x as likely as unvaccinated to transmit the virus, that cannot be allowed in a hospital:
https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/cd ... d-settings

My relative is tending to 3 cancer patients who will almost certainly die because one unvaccinated person exposed them in the hospital. Death is certainly not fair.

Get vaccinated or get out of healthcare. Most hospitals are giving until September 1st.

The vaccines have been proven safe and effective. There are 3 to choose from. The anti-vax histeria needs to end Pick one.

I wish OSHA had mandated all essential workers be vaccinated. One problem the lead doctors are having is getting staff is no one wants to do the work, outside of Pediatric coronavirus wards because 95% of the patients in their wards are qualified to be vaccinated but unvaccinated. The vaccinated have the attitude of "really?". The unvaccinated don't want to expose themselves, so now it is all assigned with no allowance for vaccine stays (I already listed exemptions).

If I could vaccinate my youngest child, I wouldn't give a 2nd thought to those who chose to risk infection. Our burn rate, at peak UV before full reopening is high.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases

Our vaccinations have stalled:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Because of those few (<2% from what I read) who legitimately cannot be vaccinated, at this time the unvaccinated are selfish and shouldn't be given a pass.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

...
The vaccines have been proven safe and effective. There are 3 to choose from. The anti-vax histeria needs to end Pick one.
...
I wish OSHA had mandated all essential workers be vaccinated.
...
Lightsaber

They are unofficially safe, officially benefits outweigh risks per EUA definition. FDA can expedite full approval.

Most of the fatalities were front line workers in retail and other service industries apart from healthcare. For months they were not offered vaccines. Old people sitting at homes or long care facilities were given preference.

dtw2hyd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

...
The vaccines have been proven safe and effective. There are 3 to choose from. The anti-vax histeria needs to end Pick one.
...
I wish OSHA had mandated all essential workers be vaccinated.
...
Lightsaber

They are unofficially safe, officially benefits outweigh risks per EUA definition. FDA can expedite full approval.

Most of the fatalities were front line workers in retail and other service industries apart from healthcare. For months they were not offered vaccines. Old people sitting at homes or long care facilities were given preference.

The essential workers were given preference ahead of myself; my nephew was vaccinated before his parents as an essential worker. Only the new Delta variant and P.1/2 seem to threaten the young. So the prior decision seems wise.

But what does that have to do with this lawsuit on mandating really available vaccines? Since giving the old vaccines unloaded the medical system, I support that decision.

Protect the vulnerable, vaccinate. Vaccines have been proven to dramatically reduce transmission (Link provided earlier, 10x less transmission!). Vaccines should be a requirement in a medical setting.

Once formally approved, then mandate all essential workers. When final approved for kids, mandate at the schools too. I know my niece's college requires vaccination in the fall, that is a comfort.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

...
The vaccines have been proven safe and effective. There are 3 to choose from. The anti-vax histeria needs to end Pick one.
...
I wish OSHA had mandated all essential workers be vaccinated.
...
Lightsaber

They are unofficially safe, officially benefits outweigh risks per EUA definition. FDA can expedite full approval.

Most of the fatalities were front line workers in retail and other service industries apart from healthcare. For months they were not offered vaccines. Old people sitting at homes or long care facilities were given preference.

The essential workers were given preference ahead of myself; my nephew was vaccinated before his parents as an essential worker. Only the new Delta variant and P.1/2 seem to threaten the young. So the prior decision seems wise.

But what does that have to do with this lawsuit on mandating really available vaccines? Since giving the old vaccines unloaded the medical system, I support that decision.

Protect the vulnerable, vaccinate. Vaccines have been proven to dramatically reduce transmission (Link provided earlier, 10x less transmission!). Vaccines should be a requirement in a medical setting.

Once formally approved, then mandate all essential workers. When final approved for kids, mandate at the schools too. I know my niece's college requires vaccination in the fall, that is a comfort.

Lightsaber

My point is unless these are certified anti-vaxxers, corporations should have some empathy towards them.

We are in a cart before the horse mode at jet speed. Litigation is the last distraction country needs. This should have been handled internally. Each legal step can go either way and one win by employees emboldens anti-vaxxers. We definitely don't need such win.

dtw2hyd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

They are unofficially safe, officially benefits outweigh risks per EUA definition. FDA can expedite full approval.

Most of the fatalities were front line workers in retail and other service industries apart from healthcare. For months they were not offered vaccines. Old people sitting at homes or long care facilities were given preference.

The essential workers were given preference ahead of myself; my nephew was vaccinated before his parents as an essential worker. Only the new Delta variant and P.1/2 seem to threaten the young. So the prior decision seems wise.

But what does that have to do with this lawsuit on mandating really available vaccines? Since giving the old vaccines unloaded the medical system, I support that decision.

Protect the vulnerable, vaccinate. Vaccines have been proven to dramatically reduce transmission (Link provided earlier, 10x less transmission!). Vaccines should be a requirement in a medical setting.

Once formally approved, then mandate all essential workers. When final approved for kids, mandate at the schools too. I know my niece's college requires vaccination in the fall, that is a comfort.

Lightsaber

My point is unless these are certified anti-vaxxers, corporations should have some empathy towards them.

We are in a cart before the horse mode at jet speed. Litigation is the last distraction country needs. This should have been handled internally. Each legal step can go either way and one win by employees emboldens anti-vaxxers. We definitely don't need such win.

They did handle it internally - the group of people led by the RN plaintiff with her agenda sued anyway (and I suspect she may have been hoodwinked by her attorney, the way he talks). 285 employees received medical and religious exemptions. There was a process, these complainants were outside of those normal channels.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus ... 55931/?amp

dtw2hyd wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

There is no exact analogy so pardon me for giving an off-topic example

You are correct. Your analogy is so far off as to be irrelevant. If we had an asteroid speeding at earth with six months' warning, the public would almost certainly not object to a quickly-designed launch system to deliver a nuclear weapon to the asteroid so as to deflect it.

But in this case, the analogy is more equivalent to having the launch system already designed in the event of an incoming asteroid and then people objecting because the exact trajectory hasn't been rigorously tested. Except even that analogy doesn't work, because the vaccine was tested.

As for your earlier claim that people at the NIH and CDC or working in healthcare are privy to some information about a vaccine danger that the general public are not, that is absurd. There would be no way to keep a secret like that. What is actually happening is that the Russian (and Chinese) governments have put out mass disinformation campaigns to discredit Western vaccines and you, for whatever reason, are parroting their disinformation.

UK government sanctions obligatory vaccination for frontline staff in care homes. If you refuse and cannot be employed in another capacity in the care home, you forfeit your job.

Common sense prevails in that unvaccinated people will no longer be in close contact with vulnerable people. A long time overdue.

Unfortunately there is a shortage of people willing to work in care homes at very low rates of pay (often the minimum legal wage) so this move will make the shortage even worse. People determined to stay unvaccinated should be able to find other jobs.

Would it not be easier to vaccinate the vulnerable and not force healthy and informed people to take the vaccine?

seahawk wrote:

Would it not be easier to vaccinate the vulnerable and not force healthy and informed people to take the vaccine?

That is not the recommended course of action by epidemiologists and public health management expert. I cannot for the life of me understand why laypersons continually challenge professional opinions on matters they have no training in. The target for vaccination is 80-90% to reach herd immunity. Your proposal would fall drastically short of that and allow new variants to continually propagate.

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/co ... d-immunity

And those variants will propagate anyway, as long we are not reaching a global herd immunity or as long as we do severely restrict travel.

seahawk wrote:

And those variants will propagate anyway, as long we are not reaching a global herd immunity or as long as we do severely restrict travel.

Completely illogical. There is enough efficacy to mitigate emergent strains - provided enough people are vaccinated.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... y-experts/

And that means enough people on the global scale. 90% vaccinated in the USA and 5% in Africa, won´t help unless you restrict travel.

seahawk wrote:

And that means enough people on the global scale. 90% vaccinated in the USA and 5% in Africa, won´t help unless you restrict travel.

Public health pros know that - that's why they're urging governments to get vaccines to developing countries ASAP. This is a logistic and political issue aside from the point you made, which seemed inclined toward individual liberty.

Outside the medical professionals working with vulnerable persons, I think it is not the time to go after those unwilling to take a vaccine and the resources would be better spent on sending those shots to people desperately wanting to get vaccinated. Once we have offered a chance to get the shot to all willing persons (on a largely global scale) it is the time to go after those unwilling. It makes me cringe when I see countries offering incentives to their population to take the shot, when other countries do not even have enough to protect their essential workforce.

seahawk wrote:

Outside the medical professionals working with vulnerable persons, I think it is not the time to go after those unwilling to take a vaccine and the resources would be better spent on sending those shots to people desperately wanting to get vaccinated. Once we have offered a chance to get the shot to all willing persons (on a largely global scale) it is the time to go after those unwilling. It makes me cringe when I see countries offering incentives to their population to take the shot, when other countries do not even have enough to protect their essential workforce.

Unfortunately the world is not setup to distribute things equally on this scale given differences of buying power and economic influence. Realistically, that will not be resolved until the wealthy determine its in their interest to do so.

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Outside the medical professionals working with vulnerable persons, I think it is not the time to go after those unwilling to take a vaccine and the resources would be better spent on sending those shots to people desperately wanting to get vaccinated. Once we have offered a chance to get the shot to all willing persons (on a largely global scale) it is the time to go after those unwilling. It makes me cringe when I see countries offering incentives to their population to take the shot, when other countries do not even have enough to protect their essential workforce.

Unfortunately the world is not setup to distribute things equally on this scale given differences of buying power and economic influence. Realistically, that will not be resolved until the wealthy determine its in their interest to do so.

The G7 just promised one billion vaccine doses for poorer countries, but saying it and doing it are often two very different things.

DocLightning wrote:

As for your earlier claim that people at the NIH and CDC or working in healthcare are privy to some information about a vaccine danger that the general public are not, that is absurd. There would be no way to keep a secret like that. What is actually happening is that the Russian (and Chinese) governments have put out mass disinformation campaigns to discredit Western vaccines and you, for whatever reason, are parroting their disinformation.

I made no such claims. I take it is confusion caused by a.net. My comment was strictly about aviation.

If I have to guess reasons for current predicament, it is the way our health care systems work. Doctors push whatever big pharma puts out. Half of the population jump on it as soon as first TV ad is out. Rest question pill pushing strategy. Nothing unique to this particular vaccine.

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Would it not be easier to vaccinate the vulnerable and not force healthy and informed people to take the vaccine?

That is not the recommended course of action by epidemiologists and public health management expert. I cannot for the life of me understand why laypersons continually challenge professional opinions on matters they have no training in. The target for vaccination is 80-90% to reach herd immunity. Your proposal would fall drastically short of that and allow new variants to continually propagate.

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/co ... d-immunity

A fact of working in the medical field is there are always a few people who feel the need to try to outsmart their doctor. We could debate all day about the various reasons why but it’s something physicians encounter on a daily basis. I personally usually don’t fall into that trap because more often than not such individuals are the authors of their own misfortune.

I just wanted to add the 90% vaccinated must be our goal. The vaccines are proven safe and the virus has more long term effects than I can concisely post about. e.g., the coronavirus does a bunch of cardiovascular damage.
https://newatlas.com/medical/covid19-he ... cle-cells/

I personally know three people who had coronavirus induced heart attacks (but then again, I am at the age men have their first heart attacks, so this probably only brought forward the event by a few years).

All medical staff must be vaccinated (minus the tiny amount of exemptions).

Lightsaber

2-11 year old kids still need protecting, especially it appears, against the Delta variant. My of three grandkids in that vulnerable group. I expect their teachers, staff, other parents etc. to help keep them safe with vaccinations. And accelerate the process for getting children vaccinated.

Definitely work on a vaccine for the kids!!!
I have a child ready and willing, below age 12.

luckyone wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

luckyone wrote:

A fact of working in the medical field is there are always a few people who feel the need to try to outsmart their doctor. We could debate all day about the various reasons why but it’s something physicians encounter on a daily basis. I personally usually don’t fall into that trap because more often than not such individuals are the authors of their own misfortune.

I just wanted to add the 90% vaccinated must be our goal. The vaccines are proven safe and the virus has more long term effects than I can concisely post about. e.g., the coronavirus does a bunch of cardiovascular damage.
https://newatlas.com/medical/covid19-he ... cle-cells/

I personally know three people who had coronavirus induced heart attacks (but then again, I am at the age men have their first heart attacks, so this probably only brought forward the event by a few years).

All medical staff must be vaccinated (minus the tiny amount of exemptions).

Lightsaber

I agree with you. One of the reasons I recently relocated and accepted a new job was to participate in a comprehensive COVID-19 recover program, and as I am really getting entrenched the consults are really rolling in. The medical sequelae are far more concerning than (legitimate) side effects of vaccines which so far have a much lower incidence of either COVID-19 or its sequelae. But quite frankly that is beyond the understanding and thus interest of your average person.

I have a relative who is supposed to be treating post Covid19 symptoms ("Long haul"), instead due to a local surge was transferred yesterday to admission of coronavirus patients (planned work was pre and post operation consultation of diagnostic surgery such as colonoscopies, people were sent home, post coronavirus work is almost halted due to staffing needs for coronavirus). You entered a field with years of demand.

Due to the shear number of anti-vax people, I think you will be able to retire doing that work.

Step #1 is prevent Hospital transmission, that is vaccinating the staff.

Lightsaber

dtw2hyd wrote:

I made no such claims. I take it is confusion caused by a.net. My comment was strictly about aviation.

If I have to guess reasons for current predicament, it is the way our health care systems work. Doctors push whatever big pharma puts out. Half of the population jump on it as soon as first TV ad is out. Rest question pill pushing strategy. Nothing unique to this particular vaccine.

I apologize, it was afcjets, not you.

However, I do not push whatever big pharma puts out and most of the doctors I know do not just push the latest drug.

However, when the pandemic hit, the world clamored for vaccines. Most of the world still is. But of course, in this privileged and bloated country, we have the best vaccines and a vast excess of them and people are still refusing them. Meanwhile, in India, they are counting the deaths by the lakh.

Since vaccines have been well proven to dramatically reduce transmission, being in healthcare and willingly not vaccinating is a problem:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/cdc-stud ... es-5121080

153 resigned or were terminated:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 314704001/

With Delta spreading, this is unfortunately necessary. It is my belief that it will take from between July 26 to Aug 16th for a major breakout to overload hospitals in multiple cities.

Since most people cannot do time lags or exponential math well, they just cannot conceive how a Ro> 5 virus that doubles every week in the UK's better vaccinated population will have absolutely no trouble taking off in the low vaccinated high density urban areas. It is a question of when, not if.

It is my belief that the next two weekends hold enough potential super spreader events that we start the nation wide kickoff to the event. But that just seeds all the low vaccination areas. They will over double cases each week taking 3 to 6 weeks after that (dependent upon local outdoor time as UV kills this virus, vaccination rates, and just how misbehaving people are) to overload hospitals.

The UK is better vaccinated and ...
"The number of Covid patients in hospital on ventilation beds had increased by 41% in the last week to 227, which she said was a strong indication Covid was having an impact on health services.

Cordery told BBC Breakfast: “Trusts on the frontline are really coming under huge pressure ... they have plans in place to tackle the backlog, but with more Covid cases and demand for emergency care going up, that’s really challenging.”
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/uknews/n ... NewsSearch

We need all the healcare vaccinated soon. It is actually getting a bit late, in my estimations, to start mRNA.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

153 resigned or were terminated:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 314704001/

Let’s hope there are no further lawsuits wasting this hospital’s time and resources.

dtw2hyd wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The general public doesn't risk vulnerable people.

Lightsaber

Agree 100% with you, but same health care workers risked their lives when nothing was available, including PPE.

Pfizer/Moderna got federal indemnity, private hospitals got liability protections under state emergency laws, but HCWs who risked their lives will get pink slips. Something is off.

Scientists aren’t all knowing and they sure don’t have a crystal ball. You don’t sue people over a lack of a crystal ball. It’s unfortunate Pfizer/Moderna had to have a special legal instrument issued to protect them, because this should be the status quo at all times.

We are probably missing out on innovation thanks to poor legislation that creates excessive liability around science. And our healthcare is made worse and more expensive for it.

lightsaber wrote:

Since vaccines have been well proven to dramatically reduce transmission, being in healthcare and willingly not vaccinating is a problem:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/cdc-stud ... es-5121080

153 resigned or were terminated:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 314704001/

I don't want to see anyone out of work, but by the same token, I almost wish these 153 can't find future work in the medical field. Anyone in the field still refusing to be vaccinated without a legitimate reason is just being irresponsible. I can't trust someone to care for me if they're an anti-vaxxer and/or calling the vaccines "experimental."

lightsaber wrote:

With Delta spreading, this is unfortunately necessary. It is my belief that it will take from between July 26 to Aug 16th for a major breakout to overload hospitals in multiple cities.

I think you're right. Everything I've read says Delta will become the dominant variant in the US, displacing Alpha, in a matter of weeks. Fortunately the vaccines are proving effective against it, but given how much more transmissible this variant is, not to mention its penchant for causing more severe disease and affecting younger people worse than previous variants, we're still going to see some pretty bad outbreaks and hospitalizations among the unvaccinated. One thing I'm hearing is that Gamma is the sort of unknown variable in the US. It never really gained a foothold in the UK, so it's not yet really clear how the trajectory will play out in the US with both Delta and Gamma out there.

At this point a lot of medical staff are at their wits' end because they're treating people who never had to get sick in the first place. They're in the ICU becasue they refused to get a vaccine.

"I mean, there's a cultural shift in our staff right now. There was this great sense of teamwork and working together in the winter and fall, and now because of the - they know that everyone - every single case we have in the hospital is not vaccinated, they - our staff's exasperated, exasperated by the politics. They're exasperated by Facebook. They're exasperated by the misinformation. They're exasperated by lies. They're frustrated because they know that while we're taking care of all these patients, we have other patients that also need care, and they couldn't be prevented with a vaccine, where these could."
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/10081963 ... t-missouri

I really can't blame them. The coming outbreaks have to be weighing heavily on medical staff.

OA412 wrote:

" we're still going to see some pretty bad outbreaks and hospitalizations among the unvaccinated. One thing I'm hearing is that Gamma is the sort of unknown variable in the US. It never really gained a foothold in the UK, so it's not yet really clear how the trajectory will play out in the US with both Delta and Gamma out there.

At this point a lot of medical staff are at their wits' end because they're treating people who never had to get sick in the first place. They're in the ICU becasue they refused to get a vaccine.

"I mean, there's a cultural shift in our staff right now. There was this great sense of teamwork and working together in the winter and fall, and now because of the - they know that everyone - every single case we have in the hospital is not vaccinated, they - our staff's exasperated, exasperated by the politics. They're exasperated by Facebook. They're exasperated by the misinformation. They're exasperated by lies. They're frustrated because they know that while we're taking care of all these patients, we have other patients that also need care, and they couldn't be prevented with a vaccine, where these could."

This part needs to be emphasized. My relative in Mesa County Colorado had to turn away all ambulances last Thursday and send them on the multi-hour drive to denver. Why? They had a floor ready, doctors assigned (not happy about it, but there).

The nurses refused the new assignment and too many had resignation letters. The vaccinated see no need. The 40% of the nurses unvaccinated (going off word of mouth) are actively avoiding the coronavirus wards.

Lies on Facebook do not excuse being unvaccinated. The next wave is so unnecessary.

I can be off in the timeframe. Every urban area has huge unvaccinated clusters that the more contagious Delta will have no problem blasting through. Not to mention the Reno kindergarten outbreak (minor cases, but they'll share the wealth):
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 329714001/

Delta has changed the rules. No one should get anywhere near the vulnerable without a vaccine. (I include AZ & NovaVax along with the US approved as good enough).

This has already started. My timeframe isn't one hospital overloaded, but when multiple cities are in dire shape and we collectively go what the hell. (July 26 to Aug 16 was the prediction). I would love to be proven wrong, I don't think so...

Lightsaber