Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Cnew02 said:

The reasons I have seen for this belief  are that “They” want the COVID rates high because “they” want to keep the “lockdowns” and keep the mask requirements to show that “they” are in charge and can manipulate the population.  So we all become reliant on the government as a step toward communism or some such. 
 

*I’m not saying anyone on this thread believes that, it’s just what I have seen on Twitter or Facebook or chatting with conservative friends.  

I've heard that, too, but it doesn't even make any sense.  Nowhere in Marx does it suggest a pandemic and lockdowns as a step towards the communist revolution.  And it simply doesn't work. The pandemic heightens inequality; it doesn't lessen it!

[HeartString]

3 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I've heard that, too, but it doesn't even make any sense.  Nowhere in Marx does it suggest a pandemic and lockdowns as a step towards the communist revolution.  And it simply doesn't work. The pandemic heightens inequality; it doesn't lessen it!

I don’t think anyone who believes this or finds it plausible has ever read or thought deeply about Marx.  Communism=government control, the end.  It’s just a boogie-man word.  The less sense it makes the harder it is to refute.  

Edited February 24, 2021 by Cnew02

[Spryte]

8 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

The reasons I have seen for this belief  are that “They” want the COVID rates high because “they” want to keep the “lockdowns” and keep the mask requirements to show that “they” are in charge and can manipulate the population.  So we all become reliant on the government as a step toward communism or some such. 
 

*I’m not saying anyone on this thread believes that, it’s just what I have seen on Twitter or Facebook or chatting with conservative friends.  

Aaah.  So the “They” are communists.  Thank you for explaining that.

[ktgrok]

21 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

  The less sense it makes the harder it is to refute.  

This is the best summary so far. And it applies to so many things. Right down to how terrible the writing is in a lot of the conspiracy theory blog posts. 

[Corraleno]

42 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

The reasons I have seen for this belief  are that “They” want the COVID rates high because “they” want to keep the “lockdowns” and keep the mask requirements to show that “they” are in charge and can manipulate the population.  So we all become reliant on the government as a step toward communism or some such. 
 

*I’m not saying anyone on this thread believes that, it’s just what I have seen on Twitter or Facebook or chatting with conservative friends.  

And by keeping positivity rates up and lockdowns in effect, they can force people to accept the dangerous experimental vaccine that will make Fauci and Gates rich and allow the government to track you either because the vaccine contains a microchip or because they will force you to carry an identity card proving you've been vaccinated.

[Mona]

Maybe, people are hesitant because this is a new type of treatment and the emergency prep act has released the pharmaceutical companies from any liability should anyone have a reaction or die. The amount of adverse reactions are high and HCP may be seeing this often enough to give them pause. I came across this article yesterday and the interview with Judy Mikovitz reminded me of the conversation here. She addresses why the shot causes inflammation and aggravates arthritis or any auto-immune disorder. I’ve also seen interviews with Dr. Delores Cahill address the problem with the shot and “pathogenic priming”. I’ll link the video with Mikovitz here: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/23/covid-vaccine-children.aspx?ui=b771022d913b28b8b0a55d1a3c4587b688c997f0c469a19349ae806c6c83aed0&sd=20201218&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20210223&mid=DM812648&rid=1091534084

Also, I noticed there was some discussion of masks. There are many articles regarding masks here: https://themodelhealthshow.com/maskfacts/ 

If you scroll to the bottom, you can watch a video where the gentleman reviews the 2016 study done at several hospitals and the result was that CLOTH masks increased the wearers chances of having a viral infection. So, if you must wear one, you should at least wear a disposable surgical mask. 

There are many doctors who speak out regarding the shot, but they are usually censored from the more popular social media platforms. 

My intention was simply to share information about why some may be turning down the shot. Not to upset anyone.

And, employers can not mandate it as of yet. Some places have tried in my state, but were sued and lost or dropped the requirement within a few days. Our hospital system is not requiring it stating that it was because of general uncertainty. Many HCP are still opting to get it. 

ETA: The 2016 mask study is not the only study on that page. There are plenty to look at. I’m not going to go back and forth on masks. There’s enough studies at that link to peruse.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Mona

[Corraleno]

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

But if you died wearing a red shirt, it does not make sense to list "red shirts" as the cause of death

 

54 minutes ago, wathe said:

Unless you are a Matador and were gored to death by a bull maybe.....  🙂

Or Yeoman Jones on the Starship Enterprise. 

[Corraleno]

37 minutes ago, Mona said:

Also, I noticed there was some discussion of masks. There are many articles regarding masks here: https://themodelhealthshow.com/maskfacts/ 

If you scroll to the bottom, you can watch a video where the gentleman reviews the 2016 study done at several hospitals and the result was that CLOTH masks increased the wearers chances of having a viral infection. So, if you must wear one, you should at least wear a disposable surgical mask. 

Oy.

That study gets linked and cited over and over by people who never bother to read it. Because if you actually read it you'll find that the control group was NOT no mask, the control group had a mix of medical and cloth masks. One group was given 2 brand new medical masks each day, one group was given simple cloth masks that they had to reuse each day after hand-washing at home (with no proof that they did wash them), and the "control group" was told to wear whatever masks they normally wear, which turned out to be a mix of medical and cloth masks.

So the result of that study was HCWs who had nice new disposable medical masks every day got the least infections, the workers who wore a mix of disposable medical masks and cloth masks were in the middle, and the group who wore nothing but cloth masks had the most infections. Duh.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Corraleno

[Mona]

15 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Oy.

That study gets linked and cited over and over by people who never bother to read it. Because if you actually read it you'll find that the control group was NOT no mask, the control group had a mix of N95s and cloth masks. One group was given 2 brand new N95s each day, one group was given simple cloth masks that they had to reuse each day after hand-washing at home (with no proof that they did wash them), and the "control group" was told to wear whatever masks they normally wear, which turned out to be a mix of N95s and cloth masks.

So the result of that study was HCWs who had nice new N95s every day got the least infections, the workers who wore a mix of N95 and cloth masks were in the middle, and the group who wore nothing but cloth masks had the most infections. Duh.

And, if you watched the video I mentioned, he explained that many people contacted him saying exactly what you just said and He said that he had to make that video to tell them that that was not the point. The point is, and i said it in my post, that cloth masks make people more sick. It is not a study to say don’t wear a mask. The control group wore them if they wanted to. And, they wore a variety. They didn’t wear them all day long. The point is that people who wore cloth masks for hours were a higher risk for viral infection. So, it is not saying don’t wear one. It is saying beware of cloth masks.

[Corraleno]

Just now, Mona said:

And, if you watched the video I mentioned, he explained that many people contacted him saying exactly what you just said and He said that he had to make that video to tell them that that was not the point. The point is, and i said it in my post, that cloth masks make people more sick. It is not a study to say don’t wear a mask. The control group wore them if they wanted to. And, they wore a variety. They didn’t wear them all day long. The point is that people who wore cloth masks for hours were a higher risk for viral infection. So, it is not saying don’t wear one. It is saying beware of cloth masks.

No, cloth masks do not "make people more sick." Cloth masks are less effective at preventing viral transmission than medical masks. That is not the same thing at all as masks making people sick.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Cnew02 said:

The reasons I have seen for this belief  are that “They” want the COVID rates high because “they” want to keep the “lockdowns” and keep the mask requirements to show that “they” are in charge and can manipulate the population.  So we all become reliant on the government as a step toward communism or some such. 
 

*I’m not saying anyone on this thread believes that, it’s just what I have seen on Twitter or Facebook or chatting with conservative friends.  

Seen just this afternoon on Facebook: 

Poster: I sure do hope it's possible to reach herd immunity by April! 

Comment: Don't you mean herd mentality? 

🙄

[ktgrok]

21 minutes ago, Mona said:

The point is, and i said it in my post, that cloth masks make people more sick. 

No. The cloth mask didn’t make anyone sick. It just wasn’t as effective as a brand new surgical mask. Also, keep in mind that anyone who did not wear a mask was eliminated from the final study results. So there really was no control group.

[historically accurate]

12 hours ago, Mona said:

Maybe, people are hesitant because this is a new type of treatment and the emergency prep act has released the pharmaceutical companies from any liability should anyone have a reaction or die. The amount of adverse reactions are high and HCP may be seeing this often enough to give them pause. I came across this article yesterday and the interview with Judy Mikovitz reminded me of the conversation here. She addresses why the shot causes inflammation and aggravates arthritis or any auto-immune disorder. I’ve also seen interviews with Dr. Delores Cahill address the problem with the shot and “pathogenic priming”. I’ll link the video with Mikovitz here: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/23/covid-vaccine-children.aspx?ui=b771022d913b28b8b0a55d1a3c4587b688c997f0c469a19349ae806c6c83aed0&sd=20201218&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20210223&mid=DM812648&rid=1091534084

Also, I noticed there was some discussion of masks. There are many articles regarding masks here: https://themodelhealthshow.com/maskfacts/ 

If you scroll to the bottom, you can watch a video where the gentleman reviews the 2016 study done at several hospitals and the result was that CLOTH masks increased the wearers chances of having a viral infection. So, if you must wear one, you should at least wear a disposable surgical mask. 

There are many doctors who speak out regarding the shot, but they are usually censored from the more popular social media platforms. 

My intention was simply to share information about why some may be turning down the shot. Not to upset anyone.

And, employers can not mandate it as of yet. Some places have tried in my state, but were sued and lost or dropped the requirement within a few days. Our hospital system is not requiring it stating that it was because of general uncertainty. Many HCP are still opting to get it. 

OK I watched the dude. At around 40 minutes in, he starts in on the "Why don't they want you to know this information?" His exact words were "Why is the information being supressed?" In my experience, that is a red flag for some sort of misinformation.

Edit: this second paragraph was just me being cranky. So, I'll refrain and take my irritability elsewhere.

Edited February 25, 2021 by historically accurate

[melmichigan]

33 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

No, cloth masks do not "make people more sick." Cloth masks are less effective at preventing viral transmission than medical masks. That is not the same thing at all as masks making people sick.

Exactly!  It's well known that better masks are more effective. I had medical grade masks on hand for my family over a year ago.  This is why come countries have moved to require medical-grade masks in public.  

[melmichigan]

4 minutes ago, historically accurate said:

OK I watched the dude. At around 40 minutes in, he starts in on the "Why don't they want you to know this information?" His exact words were "Why is the information being supressed?" In my experience, that is a red flag for some sort of misinformation.

He then oh so nicely goes on to not directly blame fat people for their severe covid, but he definitely implies it. Bite me, Mr. "Mask Facts". So helpful that he doesn't even feel that he needs to protect us fat people by wearing a f-ing mask.

You are better than I.  I saw Mercola and crossed it off my list as not worth the time.

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, Mona said:

Maybe, people are hesitant because this is a new type of treatment and the emergency prep act has released the pharmaceutical companies from any liability should anyone have a reaction or die. The amount of adverse reactions are high and HCP may be seeing this often enough to give them pause. I came across this article yesterday and the interview with Judy Mikovitz reminded me of the conversation here. She addresses why the shot causes inflammation and aggravates arthritis or any auto-immune disorder.

Thanks, I was trying to research briefly inflammation and the vaccine to see if it could be causing my dad's flare up of symptoms, and I besides the vaccine concerned sites I came across an interesting one aimed at people with inflammatory/autoimmune disorders. It seemed even they were saying it causes inflammation and that some were having to alter their med use *briefly* to allow that to occur to let the vaccine work. And their thesis seemed to be that the good of the vaccine outweighed the accepted possible consequences. https://creakyjoints.org/living-with-arthritis/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/american-college-rheumatology-clinical-guidance-covid-19-vaccine/  That's where I was reading, not exactly an anti vaccine site, lol. 

So yeah, it's funny because when you read the pro pro sites they're like stop complaining it's fine, and the anti sites are like you're gonna get alzheimers and prion diseases and arthritis and... LOL It's crazy! And apparently I hadn't researched it enough, because no I was not in the loop on this idea of thought with the inflammation. And like you say, it's just interesting to know that's what some people are saying. 

To me, that's like saying a math curriculum is bad. It will be bad for whom it's bad and yet there will be someone for whom it's FINE. And I'm guessing none of these people are totally straight, but that it's going to be fine for some people and set off stuff in others. That's just my assumption. 

46 minutes ago, katilac said:

Seen just this afternoon on Facebook: 

Poster: I sure do hope it's possible to reach herd immunity by April! 

Comment: Don't you mean herd mentality? 

🙄

Oh that's hilarious. People already have that down.

1 hour ago, Mona said:

It is saying beware of cloth masks.

Shh, you're not allowed to attack the dogma. The State says ALL MASKS ARE GOOD and better than nothing and should be worn. 

 

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

So the result of that study was HCWs who had nice new disposable medical masks every day got the least infections, the workers who wore a mix of disposable medical masks and cloth masks were in the middle, and the group who wore nothing but cloth masks had the most infections. Duh.

Exactly. 

[PeterPan]

Well in the continuing saga of my dad, they gave him Lyrica to tone down his back pain. He had just taken it when I talked with him, so it hadn't kicked in yet, but he already sounded better. I think the inflammation is going down. The cycle that happened before was a peak and then improvement each day. So he was really horrible yesterday, but he seems to be going the other direction and improving. 

So I'm hoping with time plus the Lyrica plus the new kick butt therapy regimen they're putting him on (twice a week, in his room) he's going to improve. He doesn't think he's getting out of the wheelchair, but we'll see. It would be nice obviously, as he needs to move for health and is awfully young (a spritely 70) to be unable to walk. He walked into his first covid shot and wheeled to the 2nd. So hopefully it reverses and he continues to improve.

Which is partly to say @Mona that I think there *are* probably dangers of inflammation flare ups in certain populations and that there's going to be some data gathering to sort that out. Can you *prove* the connection with my dad's? Who knows. He's been to doctors and to my knowledge they haven't reported it. My next step is to call and suggest it, because they have MRIs and visits to have that data. You can't even file a VAERS report without all kinds of data.

Edited February 25, 2021 by PeterPan

[Mona]

@PeterPanI’m happy to hear that things are moving in the right direction. 😊 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

You can't even file a VAERS report without all kinds of data.

I'm going to disagree here, not to convince you to report your dad's, but so other people have the awareness. 

This is what's required on a VAERS report: 

• Date of birth
• Male or female
• Date and time of vaccination
• Date and time adverse reaction began
• Description of the adverse reaction 
• Result (did he go to doctor, ER, etc)

You fill it out to the best of your ability, with as much information as you have. Like they obviously ask which vaccine, but there's an "unknown" option even for that. And they say it's fine to use your best guess for numbers, dates, and times if you are unsure. So you may be seeing things on the report that you don't have an answer for, but you can still file, and there is a toll free phone number or an email you can use to get help.  

 

 

[PeterPan]

6 minutes ago, katilac said:

I'm going to disagree here, not to convince you to report your dad's, but so other people have the awareness. 

This is what's required on a VAERS report: 

• Date of birth
• Male or female
• Date and time of vaccination
• Date and time adverse reaction began
• Description of the adverse reaction 
• Result (did he go to doctor, ER, etc)

You fill it out to the best of your ability, with as much information as you have. Like they obviously ask which vaccine, but there's an "unknown" option even for that. And they say it's fine to use your best guess for numbers, dates, and times if you are unsure. So you may be seeing things on the report that you don't have an answer for, but you can still file, and there is a toll free phone number or an email you can use to get help.  

 

 

Did you look at the PDF? I tried to go through their online thing, and it wanted every medication, diagnostic codes, on and on. https://vaers.hhs.gov/uploadFile/index.jsp  Download the pdf, look at items 9, 10, 11, and 12. On my dad, those files are PAGES LONG. I kid you not. I've downloaded them from the VA and it's pages and pages of stuff with every med, every condition they're treating, blah blah. With their interactive fillable form it's more clear that they know that section blows up big for some people. 

Or are you saying the fine print is that you only HAVE to do the yellow items that they've marked as ESSENTIAL? So yeah, if you skip the bulk of the form and only answer a few items, then yeah, lol.

Edited February 25, 2021 by PeterPan

[ktgrok]

All vaccines cause an inflammatory response - they are supposed to. 

[katilac]

32 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

 Or are you saying the fine print is that you only HAVE to do the yellow items that they've marked as ESSENTIAL? So yeah, if you skip the bulk of the form and only answer a few items, then yeah, lol.

Well, it's not fine print, but yes. For the others, you put whatever information you have.  

Why make partial reports? One of the main purposes of VAERS is to look for patterns, detect new reactions, detect increases in types of reactions, and other such important stuff. The essential information has a lot of value for this purpose. 

If CDC/FDA needs to follow up on a serious adverse event, they will obtain additional information at that time. 

[melmichigan]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

All vaccines cause an inflammatory response - they are supposed to. 

Yes they do.  I believe I linked the MedPage up thread somewhere that discusses particular populations and the mRNA vaccine.  No condition, to my knowledge, is contraindicated at this time. There is concern that some specific conditions may be more impacted by the inflammatory process and information is being collected as it’s given to the general public.  I’m not sure if one would consider it a side effect, as much as the fact that we don’t necessarily understand to what degree the inflammation may impact conditions.  Just like we’re not yet sure how likely people are to have allergic reactions. 
 

I speak with my neurologist before any vaccination, and did so before I made a decision with regards to the current vaccines available.  That has been recommended with many conditions. There is also concern about some medications interfering with the process. Those on particular MS medications are being encouraged to consider adjustments in administering meds to enhance the effectiveness of the vaccine. The same for those who take steroids. There are literally task forces weighing the pros and cons for individual conditions and making recommendations for their patient cohorts.

ETA: my brain is getting fuzzy tonight, if I didn’t explain myself well I’ll try again tomorrow

Edited February 25, 2021 by melmichigan

[KathyBC]

5 hours ago, Terabith said:

I've heard that, too, but it doesn't even make any sense.  Nowhere in Marx does it suggest a pandemic and lockdowns as a step towards the communist revolution.  And it simply doesn't work. The pandemic heightens inequality; it doesn't lessen it!

Well yes, but with Marxism some folks are more equal than others, so there's that.

Really, if you're trying to set up conditions for a proletariat revolution, heightening inequality creates the problem for which you have the solution.
Like advertising: create a problem, sell your solution. I'm not subscribing to this theory, just saying it's not 100% implausible.

[Halftime Hope]

On 2/20/2021 at 4:40 PM, kand said:

This is a narrative being pushed by anti-vax activist Robert F Kennedy. He wrote an article spread far and wide across unreliable websites saying this. The Fulton County Medical Examiner who declares the death to be of natural causes in fact.

”In a statement emailed to AFP Fact Check, the county medical examiner, Karen Sullivan, said: “There was no information suggestive of an allergic or anaphylactic reaction to any substance which might be attributable to recent vaccine distribution.”

She added: “In addition, examination of Mr. Aaron’s body did not suggest his death was due to any event other than that associated with his medical history.”

Hank Aaron died two weeks before his 87th birthday. Hardly suspicious for a man of his age to pass away of natural causes. It’s gross that people are using him and his death and memory in this way. 

Kand, I apologize for getting back to this so late.  What Robert Kennedy was told by the person who answered the phone (he gave her name specifically) was that the coroner or medical examiner's office never examined the body.  The specific wording used above by Karen Sullivan would indicate that is indeed true, otherwise she would have denied what RK stated that he was told. It is entirely unknown what, specifically, Hank Aaron died from.  It is quite likely that no one except a hospice nurse if he died at home, or a floor nurse if he was at a facility, confirmed the death and examined the body.  

Some other countries have halted administration of the vaccines after a high number of elderly deaths.  They want to be sure that there is not causation.   I think that is prudent.   

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

 

Some other countries have halted administration of the vaccines after a high number of elderly deaths.  They want to be sure that there is not causation.   I think that is prudent.   

Link? What countries have stopped vaccinating for Covid?

[wathe]

8 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Link? What countries have stopped vaccinating for Covid?

I also would like to know too.  I don't think any.  I can't find any reports to suggest any countries have stopped vaccination because of vaccine related complications or deaths.  Europe and Canada had a delayed rollout because of a Pfizer supply issue, and South Africa suspended their Oxford AZ program because of lack of efficacy wrt the B.1.351.

[Katy]

What initially made the news was 23 deaths of the elderly in Norway. Then it was increased to 33 deaths. I don’t have a link, but I saw an interview on YouTube of the Norwegian physician who published the paper on ABC (Australian not USA), and he scoffed at the bad journalism. He said while those deaths did occur they were in what would be considered hospice patients in American terms. The deaths were actually 10% LOWER than they would have expected in the two weeks after the vaccine had the vaccine not been given. Somehow it kept people dying from other causes alive longer than expected. Though, and this is my note, the numbers we are talking are small enough for it to be statistical noise. As a result of the questions the journalist noted there were people in the Australian government calling to not use the Pfizer vaccine in those over 70 (I think, it’s been more than a week since I saw this so I may have the age wrong).

[historically accurate]

5 minutes ago, Katy said:

What initially made the news was 23 deaths of the elderly in Norway. Then it was increased to 33 deaths. I don’t have a link, but I saw an interview on YouTube of the Norwegian physician who published the paper on ABC (Australian not USA), and he scoffed at the bad journalism. He said while those deaths did occur they were in what would be considered hospice patients in American terms. The deaths were actually 10% LOWER than they would have expected in the two weeks after the vaccine had the vaccine not been given. Somehow it kept people dying from other causes alive longer than expected. Though, and this is my note, the numbers we are talking are small enough for it to be statistical noise. As a result of the questions the journalist noted there were people in the Australian government calling to not use the Pfizer vaccine in those over 70 (I think, it’s been more than a week since I saw this so I may have the age wrong).

Links to information regarding this:

January 15th: https://apnews.com/article/denmark-coronavirus-pandemic-norway-coronavirus-vaccine-europe-51e350b246b4bc4ad92e009626c15844

Resolved by January 18th: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/norway-covid-19-vaccine-elderly-deaths-no-link/

My note: they did not stop vaccinations as far as I am reading. They allowed doctors to have more leeway on whether to have a specific patient not be vaccinated according to risk/benefit calculations. 

[wathe]

I think all the focus on the fact that a coroner or ME might not have examined Hank Aaron's body is misleading. 

Only a small proportion of deaths become coroners cases, and an even smaller proportion of those are autopsied (about 5% of all deaths.)  Most natural deaths do not become coroner's cases. 

Hank Aaron's death was certified by someone (likely MD, sometimes NP, and maybe in the US there are other providers that can certify deaths), and that person was qualified to determine the cause of death.  This is a legal requirement.

The other important point to note is that, when certifying a death, examining the body doesn't usually yield much useful information (not talking about autopsy).  Like almost everything in medicine, the history usually holds most of the clues, and the physical exam serves to confirm.  For most natural deaths, examining the body very rarely tells the certifier anything that she didn't already know from reviewing the history, and  serves to confirm/be consistent with what she already knows.

ETA  All this to say, that if it's true that a ME or coroner didn't examine HA's body, that not evidence of some sort of cover up.  It's normal.

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by wathe

[Halftime Hope]

5 minutes ago, wathe said:

I think all the focus on the fact that a coroner or ME might not have examined Hank Aaron's body is misleading. 

Only a small proportion of deaths become coroners cases, and an even smaller proportion of those are autopsied (about 5% of all deaths.)  Most natural deaths do not become coroner's cases. 

Hank Aaron's death was certified by someone (likely MD, sometimes NP, and maybe in the US there are other providers that can certify deaths), and that person was qualified to determine the cause of death.  This is a legal requirement.

The other important point to note is that, when certifying a death, examining the body doesn't usually yield much useful information (not talking about autopsy).  Like almost everything in medicine, the history usually holds most of the clues, and the physical exam serves to confirm.  For most natural deaths, examining the body very rarely tells the certifier anything that she didn't already know from reviewing the history, and  serves to confirm/be consistent with what she already knows.

 

 

See, that's kind of the whole point of this, in both places that I bolded above. 

 I have been at 3 deaths of elderly relatives, and there really is no examination of the body.  The nurse confirms the death (checks for pulse, breathing, etc., and later an MD who never sees the body "certifies" the death at some point far removed from the actual death, and fills out the paperwork.  In general, it is completely assumed that the cause of death is "natural causes".   

Two examples:  my FIL had a permanent port installed for dialysis on a Wednesday, got an infection and died of sepsis, in the hospital, the following Wednesday. On Saturday he was bouncing back, laughing with family mid-day, but never woke up on Sunday morning; he was comatose. They figured he had had a massive stroke, but never confirmed it with tests due to his age (76) and co-morbidities.  Yet with all of that, his death certificate said "natural causes".  The doctor that completed his death certificate could have put several bonafide things on his certificate, but chose "natural causes" as the path of least resistance.  (The most accurate would have been sepsis -- the labs were there to prove it -- but that could have been litigated.)

My father's body did just quit, mid-day, while he was holding a glass of water to finish washing down his lunch.  No doctor ever saw him after death. Yet one sure did sign the death certificate.  He died with raging prostate cancer, but the death certificate said "natural causes".  Again, it's an assumption. 

So, if we really, really wanted to know what was going on with elderly deaths after the vaccine, the medical establishment would be choosing to keep records and do better exams.  

 

 

 

 

[Halftime Hope]

31 minutes ago, kand said:

That’s a lot of speculation without any evidence. I don’t know why Robert Kennedy would be considered the ultimate source of truth over this. He has no direct connection to this case whatsoever. The medical examiner would have no reason to make a statement  regarding something Robert Kennedy was claiming. 

The medical examiner chose to respond to the "fact-checking" organization.  It was completely up to them what to say or not say. 

 

[wathe]

7 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

See, that's kind of the whole point of this, in both places that I bolded above. 

 I have been at 3 deaths of elderly relatives, and there really is no examination of the body.  The nurse confirms the death (checks for pulse, breathing, etc., and later an MD who never sees the body "certifies" the death at some point far removed from the actual death, and fills out the paperwork.  In general, it is completely assumed that the cause of death is "natural causes".   

Two examples:  my FIL had a permanent port installed for dialysis on a Wednesday, got an infection and died of sepsis, in the hospital, the following Wednesday. On Saturday he was bouncing back, laughing with family mid-day, but never woke up on Sunday morning; he was comatose. They figured he had had a massive stroke, but never confirmed it with tests due to his age (76) and co-morbidities.  Yet with all of that, his death certificate said "natural causes".  The doctor that completed his death certificate could have put several bonafide things on his certificate, but chose "natural causes" as the path of least resistance.  (The most accurate would have been sepsis -- the labs were there to prove it -- but that could have been litigated.)

My father's body did just quit, mid-day, while he was holding a glass of water to finish washing down his lunch.  No doctor ever saw him after death. Yet one sure did sign the death certificate.  He died with raging prostate cancer, but the death certificate said "natural causes".  Again, it's an assumption. 

So, if we really, really wanted to know what was going on with elderly deaths after the vaccine, the medical establishment would be choosing to keep records and do better exams.  

 

 

 

 

Interesting.  Here, "natural" is a manner of death, not a cause of death.  "Natural causes" is not an acceptable cause of death to put on a death certificate.  Here, a certificate that stated "natural causes" as the cause of death would be flagged by the coroner and trigger a review.  That death certificate would not be allowed to stand, it would have to be corrected.

A quick google search suggests that it's not acceptable in the US either.  From the CDC:  "Common problems in death certification The elderly decedent should have a clear and distinct etiological sequence for cause of death, if possible. Terms such as senescence, infirmity, old age, and advanced age have little value for public health or medical research. Age is recorded elsewhere on the certificate. When a number of conditions resulted in death, the physician should choose the single sequence that, in his or her opinion, best describes the process leading to death, and place any other pertinent conditions in Part II. If after careful consideration the physician cannot determine a sequence that ends in death, then the medical examiner or coroner should be consulted about conducting an investigation or providing assistance in completing the cause of death"

 

[ktgrok]

@Halftime Hope, not sure if you saw my post asking you to clarify your statement that there are countries that have stopped vaccinating for Covid due to elderly deaths?

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

9 minutes ago, wathe said:

Interesting.  Here, "natural" is a manner of death, not a cause of death.  "Natural causes" is not an acceptable cause of death to put on a death certificate.  Here, a certificate that stated "natural causes" as the cause of death would be flagged by the coroner and trigger a review.  That death certificate would not be allowed to stand, it would have to be corrected.

A quick google search suggests that it's not acceptable in the US either.  From the CDC:  "Common problems in death certification The elderly decedent should have a clear and distinct etiological sequence for cause of death, if possible. Terms such as senescence, infirmity, old age, and advanced age have little value for public health or medical research. Age is recorded elsewhere on the certificate. When a number of conditions resulted in death, the physician should choose the single sequence that, in his or her opinion, best describes the process leading to death, and place any other pertinent conditions in Part II. If after careful consideration the physician cannot determine a sequence that ends in death, then the medical examiner or coroner should be consulted about conducting an investigation or providing assistance in completing the cause of death"

 

I work super part time for the county medical examiner’s office.

“Natural death” is anything from medical reasons. Homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths are all automatically autopsied. If the ER doc, hospitalist or patient’s primary doctor will sign the death certificate and it doesn’t trigger an ME investigation, then nothing further ever happens.

aside from unnatural deaths, my state requires the ME for any at home unexpected deaths without hospice, deaths of a patient who has been in the hospital less than 24 hours,  and the death of a patient who has recently fallen(such as someone who fell at the nursing home, broke her hip, and passed away in the hospital a week later).  Those categories are rarely autopsied as there is usually a known or highly suspected reason for the death.

Right now the county is doing a Covid swab and flu swab on every decedent with unknown Covid status. It hasn’t really given us any useful information though.

[wathe]

 

OK, I've spent the last 15 min reading Amercan death certification manuals.  Apparently "Unspecified Natural Causes" is acceptable, but strongly discouraged.  I can guarantee you that writing such a thing on death certificate in my jurisdiction would prompt review by the coroner.  It would absolutely not fly for a death that occurred in a hospital

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_cod.pdf

https://www.health.state.mn.us/people/vitalrecords/physician-me/docs/capcodbook.pdf

[SKL]

50 minutes ago, kand said:

Why are some people looking so hard for ways to say Covid vaccines are killing the elderly anyway?  The world has vaccinated a LOT of elderly folks at this point. It has lowered their death rates everywhere it has been done. Substantially. This is life saving for elderly people. Why do some people want to convince them they shouldn’t get vaccinated?

I think some people are doing this as part of their overall denial of what they call the "plandemic."  [Now don't go accusing me of spreading conspiracy theories just because I acknowledged some people think this way.  You asked, I answered.]

But for those with more rational and altruistic mindsets, I think it's more a concern about the apparent "one size fits all" approach to vaccinating.

Personally, I could see very much promoting the vax to older people who are in relatively decent health, but I don't know about folks who are in very poor health to begin with.  We know that the side effects often have healthy people so wiped out they are in bed for a day.  It seems logical that this would not be desireable for folks who are already very weak.

It's popular to say that the side effects of the vax are better than what Covid does.  In some populations, that may be true, but I don't think there are only two choices.  I think we can continue to try to shield our most fragile, already ill people from Covid, partly by vaccinating those healthier people who will be visiting and caring for them.

Recently, there seems to be a movement toward a more case-by-case vax decision vs. just trying to speed toward the highest possible vax rate in the shortest possible time.  I think that makes sense.

Edited February 27, 2021 by SKL

[Jean in Newcastle]

"Natural Death" is a very broad category.  Unless it absolutely can't be narrowed down further, it's not going to show up on a death certificate. 

[wathe]

19 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I work super part time for the county medical examiner’s office.

“Natural death” is anything from medical reasons. Homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths are all automatically autopsied. If the ER doc, hospitalist or patient’s primary doctor will sign the death certificate and it doesn’t trigger an ME investigation, then nothing further ever happens.

aside from unnatural deaths, my state requires the ME for any at home unexpected deaths without hospice, deaths of a patient who has been in the hospital less than 24 hours,  and the death of a patient who has recently fallen(such as someone who fell at the nursing home, broke her hip, and passed away in the hospital a week later).  Those categories are rarely autopsied as there is usually a known or highly suspected reason for the death.

Right now the county is doing a Covid swab and flu swab on every decedent with unknown Covid status. It hasn’t really given us any useful information though.

Right.  Here we distinguish cause of death from manner of death, and what you are talking about would be considered manner of death.  And yes, all manners of death except natural become coroner's cases here too.  And some natural deaths (every tenth nursing home death, for example).  Most natural deaths are certified by the attending MD or NP and don't become coronoer's cases.  All deaths are reviewed by the coroner's office at some level - usually a rubber stamping of the death certificate and nothing further.**

Our coroners expect more nuance than "natural death" when listing the cause of death.

ETA**if the coroner feels the death certificate is irregular for any reason, that will prompt a review.  Including a cause of death that is overly vague.

Edited February 27, 2021 by wathe

[Jean in Newcastle]

My dad's natural death was listed as "failure to thrive".  That basically means that they don't know why he died.  He just was ready to die at 92, waited for me to come visit from across the country and died the next day. 

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

He said while those deaths did occur they were in what would be considered hospice patients in American terms. The deaths were actually 10% LOWER than they would have expected in the two weeks after the vaccine had the vaccine not been given.

Just a radical observation, but you have to wonder what is cracked in our country/world that we're giving something in limited supply to someone who is about to die ANYWAY. That's just dumb. Makes no sense.

Or put another way, look at the eyebrows raised in Florida, where instead of prioritizing the OLDEST (and therefore theoretically closest to death), they just opened it up to anyone 65+. So people more likely to live (less elderly, not on hospice for pity's sake) could go ahead and get the shot and jump ahead of the most most elderly. 

Could be a little logic there. And I'm not trying to insinuate there was some death plan against the most elderly. Just pointing out these were political decisions made by governors on how to prioritize. To me that's a little cracked if they were giving the vaccine to people they knew were about to die, mercy.

Edited February 27, 2021 by PeterPan

[Jean in Newcastle]

29 minutes ago, kand said:

At what point do we want to deem someone’s life no longer worth preserving? Do you want your dad in a care home to be considered a worthwhile life? She didn’t literally mean these were hospice patients. Just that they were very elderly and very frail patients in nursing homes.  

Not to mention that vaccinating everyone in a nursing home also protects all the aides, nurses and support staff in that nursing home and to some extent, their families. 

My mom is 96.  She got the vaccine and is doing fine (and yes, I realize that this is anecdotal).  But she may actually have more years ahead of her or she could take a nap and die in her sleep.  We don't know.  In the meantime, we really would like the situation to get to where she can receive visitors in person.  We're not complaining about the visitor situation.  We know why that is and while there is a degree of suckage about it, we (and she) will deal.  But we are also glad that vaccines give a small glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel with regards to visitors. 

[katilac]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

Just a radical observation, but you have to wonder what is cracked in our country/world that we're giving something in limited supply to someone who is about to die ANYWAY. That's just dumb. Makes no sense.

Or put another way, look at the eyebrows raised in Florida, where instead of prioritizing the OLDEST (and therefore theoretically closest to death), they just opened it up to anyone 65+. So people more likely to live (less elderly, not on hospice for pity's sake) could go ahead and get the shot and jump ahead of the most most elderly. 

Could be a little logic there. And I'm not trying to insinuate there was some death plan against the most elderly. Just pointing out these were political decisions made by governors on how to prioritize. To me that's a little cracked if they were giving the vaccine to people they knew were about to die, mercy.

I would think that knowing that it spreads very fast in congregate living played into the decision, but I don't know that for a fact. Older and weaker people get the vaccine because they are very likely to die if they get covid, but also because it is very likely that numerous other people will get it if they do (and then it spreads past the living facility because of workers). 

And of course they can't know specifically who is or isn't about to die, but they can know that it's not very surprising that a certain number of people in their 90s die during any given time. That doesn't mean people in their 90s don't want the vaccine, or that it isn't prudent to give it to them. 

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, kand said:

At what point do we want to deem someone’s life no longer worth preserving? Do you want your dad in a care home to be considered a worthwhile life? She didn’t literally mean these were hospice patients. Just that they were very elderly and very frail patients in nursing homes.  

Yes.

I believe that Indonesia and China are vaccinating young people first. This is partly to support the economy and partly because in multi-generational households if the vaccine reduces infection then young workers are less likely to bring infection home to elderly relatives.  Care homes are a different situation. 

The UK has gone strictly by risk of serious illness and death. Apart from health care workers,  who could easily infect the vulnerable, it's by age and health status only.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Laura Corin

[Halftime Hope]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

@Halftime Hope, not sure if you saw my post asking you to clarify your statement that there are countries that have stopped vaccinating for Covid due to elderly deaths?

You know, I phrased that without enough specificity.  I have read in the past week or few weeks that some countries were concerned about vaccinations and deaths in their elderly population, and they had -- quite possibly temporarily -- halted the vaccinations in that population, until they had better data.  Not the entire vaccination rollout. 

I don't sit here and write for lawyers; I had engaged while talking about vaccinations and the elderly, so I thought readers understood that. 

[Halftime Hope]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

"Natural Death" is a very broad category.  Unless it absolutely can't be narrowed down further, it's not going to show up on a death certificate. 

 

2 hours ago, wathe said:

 

OK, I've spent the last 15 min reading Amercan death certification manuals.  Apparently "Unspecified Natural Causes" is acceptable, but strongly discouraged.  I can guarantee you that writing such a thing on death certificate in my jurisdiction would prompt review by the coroner.  It would absolutely not fly for a death that occurred in a hospital

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_cod.pdf

https://www.health.state.mn.us/people/vitalrecords/physician-me/docs/capcodbook.pdf

You two can postulate and say what should or shouldn't happen, but what is reality is often different from the procedure manuals.   

 

[Jaybee]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Just a radical observation, but you have to wonder what is cracked in our country/world that we're giving something in limited supply to someone who is about to die ANYWAY. That's just dumb. Makes no sense.

Or put another way, look at the eyebrows raised in Florida, where instead of prioritizing the OLDEST (and therefore theoretically closest to death), they just opened it up to anyone 65+. So people more likely to live (less elderly, not on hospice for pity's sake) could go ahead and get the shot and jump ahead of the most most elderly. 

Could be a little logic there. And I'm not trying to insinuate there was some death plan against the most elderly. Just pointing out these were political decisions made by governors on how to prioritize. To me that's a little cracked if they were giving the vaccine to people they knew were about to die, mercy.

Well, my mom is 90 and got her 2nd Pfizer yesterday. I am so very glad she did. She said earlier in the pandemic that she doesn't mind if she dies, but she doesn't want to die alone in a hospital with none of us there. I don't want her to, either. 

[melmichigan]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

You know, I phrased that without enough specificity.  I have read in the past week or few weeks that some countries were concerned about vaccinations and deaths in their elderly population, and they had -- quite possibly temporarily -- halted the vaccinations in that population, until they had better data.  Not the entire vaccination rollout. 

I don't sit here and write for lawyers; I had engaged while talking about vaccinations and the elderly, so I thought readers understood that. 

There are a number of countries that have halted giving the AstaZeneca vaccine to those 65+. They state a lack of data in that age group.  Indonesia isn't vaccinating the elderly population and news list various reasons, the most common being the economy, but the vaccine that they are using wasn't studied in those 59+.  I know of no country that halted vaccinations because of concerns about deaths in the elderly.  Norway studied it, and deemed no link.

Edited February 27, 2021 by melmichigan

[wathe]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

 

You two can postulate and say what should or shouldn't happen, but what is reality is often different from the procedure manuals.   

 

For sure, real life is messy and imperfect.

But the anecdotes you describe do not match the reality of how deaths are certified in my jurisdiction.  They were surprising enough to me to prompt me to have a look at how deaths are certified in the US.  It would seem that the process is much the same.  Which lead me to wonder if your individual experiences (which of course are real)  might not represent the greater reality of how deaths are certified in the US.  

[wathe]

4 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I work super part time for the county medical examiner’s office.

“Natural death” is anything from medical reasons. Homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths are all automatically autopsied. If the ER doc, hospitalist or patient’s primary doctor will sign the death certificate and it doesn’t trigger an ME investigation, then nothing further ever happens.

aside from unnatural deaths, my state requires the ME for any at home unexpected deaths without hospice, deaths of a patient who has been in the hospital less than 24 hours,  and the death of a patient who has recently fallen(such as someone who fell at the nursing home, broke her hip, and passed away in the hospital a week later).  Those categories are rarely autopsied as there is usually a known or highly suspected reason for the death.

Right now the county is doing a Covid swab and flu swab on every decedent with unknown Covid status. It hasn’t really given us any useful information though.

Ok, I'm perseverating now, forgive me.  If you are comfortable answering, I would genuinely like to know:

Are you seeing "natural causes" written as the cause of death (box 32 on the US Standard Certificate of Death) in lieu of a disease process (like pneumonia, or coronary artery disease, or, metastatic lung cancer, etc)?  Or are you referring to manner of death (box 37)?     "Natural Causes" just isn't an acceptable cause of death on a death certificate here. 

Our death certificates are much more streamlined.