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

[EKS]

I should also mention that at a memory care facility in my small town, the largest covid outbreak here since this whole thing started occurred among a group of health care workers who had refused the vaccine (and one patient who had just received the vaccine the day before).   As far as I know, everyone who was fully vaccinated did not get ill.

Edited February 20, 2021 by EKS

[PeterPan]

1 minute ago, EKS said:

I think that if a health care worker choses to refuse the vaccine, they have to be prepared for their employer to choose to replace them with a vaccinated individual.

I so wanted to check and just haven't gotten it done. What are states doing right now with the flu vaccine? I sorta remember there was this same hubub with that years ago, with the health care workers wanting the choose and the employers requiring. I think our state recently backpedaled on it. I think there's just the dualing values that we have to work out.

For me, what I would prefer (advocating for my dad) is that anyone who cannot/will not take the vaccine for whatever reason be repositioned to a location where they do not have direct contact with him. I feel it's reasonable BECAUSE the consequences are so serious. Even when his vaccine has totally kicked in in two weeks, he will be compelled to sequester two weeks in his 394 sq foot apartment (do the math on that) if he has a direct exposure per CDC. 

If someone in the general public quarantines, they go to their nice cozy house, have freedom of movement, maybe a yard. If my dad has to quarantine, life SUCKS. Try staying in 394 sq feet for two weeks. Ain't cool.

[PeterPan]

2 minutes ago, EKS said:

occurred among a group of who had refused the vaccine

And it makes sense that it's GOING TO HAPPEN. If everyone is going to get it (or be vaccinated and have a milder or non form) at some point, then it's going to happen. And it's irresponsible to put our loved ones at risk. The mental health risks from the isolation are almost as bad as the disease we're avoiding. 

[HS Mom in NC]

7 minutes ago, EKS said:

I think that if a health care worker choses to refuse the vaccine, they have to be prepared for their employer to choose to replace them with a vaccinated individual.

I agree.  I support vaccine choice in general while at the same time I fully support employers, schools, residential facilities, the military, foreign countries people visit, international adoption agencies, etc. to choose to set vaccine mandates for people they're legally responsible for.  Only if BOTH parties are in agreement that they're BOTH fine with the risk of outbreak and willing to take on any potential liability that comes with it can they decided to be a vaccine-free environment. Otherwise they get to set the vaccine rules because it's a group environment where what part of the group does has the potential to seriously impact the rest of the group who may not consent to taking on the risk.

[catz]

2 hours ago, katilac said:

Why are numerous people calling out Peter Pan for wondering if vaccine refusal might be because CNA workers have a low level of education (which, as a group, they do) but no one utters a peep about Bill implying that people who refuse the vaccine aren't smart? 

 

I more often than not agree with Bill, but I do think he gets away with a condescending tone here no one else would.  It puzzles me regularly.

[HS Mom in NC]

I do think this is another opportunity to examine WHY many people have such low confidence in medical authorities.  If the medical community truly wants to make progress, they have to start asking the question and see if there are any ways they contributed it, and if so,  start fixing it.  Calling people dumb or stupid won't persuade them to change their ways.

My oldest daughter was a labor and postpartum doula and had training in dealing with minority mothers.  It's appalling how the medical community in general talks to and treats minority women as a whole.

[PeterPan]

6 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Otherwise they get to set the vaccine rules because it's a group environment where what part of the group does has the potential to seriously impact the rest of the group who may not consent to taking on the risk.

Yes, I think this is what is bugging me. If they are not going to provide safe workers, then we need to be allowed to consent to or refuse that. My dad should be able to refuse to have around him for direct, sustained contact, anyone who is not a safe worker. And since masks DO NOT CHANGE THE CDC'S REQUIREMENT to quarantine, no unvaccinated worker is safe.

So that's really interesting and I wonder if maybe documentation like that will start to come, because we should have the RIGHT to control, in a group setting we're paying for, who has contact with him. As the family/POA, I have to advocate for that. They have their employer issues, but I have my responsibility.

[PeterPan]

6 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I more often than not agree with Bill, but I do think he gets away with a condescending tone here no one else would.  It puzzles me regularly.

He does it so discretely, like the dog whizzing on your bush, that you give up and move on.

[KathyBC]

54 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I've been quite clear on the boards here that I am not in favor of the general mask mandates, etc. etc. but I don't have the time of day for someone who's rebellious enough, sloppy enough, uncaring enough, unconscientious enough, whatever it is driving it, to not make sure your stupid face is actually in the mask if you're wearing it. I don't think I should have to mask to go to Walmart, but if I'm going to mask my face is covered. And if I walk in a store and it says to cover my face, I do it. I don't sit there half pulling it down and playing games and leaving my nose out. And I don't care what somebody's education level is (I've seen it across levels), it really bugs me. And in a health care setting, where people's lives and freedom of movement are on the line depending on how conscientious you are to basic protocols, it's just unacceptable. 

 

When I see that in Walmart or wherever, I assume the person is genuinely struggling and move along. As you point out, location matters. In a care facility? Find a way to wear PPE correctly when and where you need to. Period.
I do feel the general public would have better compliance allowing face shields for those who struggle rather than insisting on masks. It cannot be worse, in lower risk settings, than pulled down under the nose, constantly being fussed with, thus 'contaminating' hands. What's that saying about recycling? We need millions of people doing it imperfectly, rather than one person doing it perfectly.
Hopefully not too off topic. The constant quarantining of seniors is a huge problem.

Edited February 20, 2021 by KathyBC

[PeterPan]

3 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

It's appalling how the medical community in general talks to and treats minority women as a whole.

The last episode of Good Doctor tried to tackle this and was giving data. It was a world I just wasn't familiar with, so I was surprised.

[HS Mom in NC]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

Yes, I think this is what is bugging me. If they are not going to provide safe workers, then we need to be allowed to consent to or refuse that. My dad should be able to refuse to have around him for direct, sustained contact, anyone who is not a safe worker. And since masks DO NOT CHANGE THE CDC'S REQUIREMENT to quarantine, no unvaccinated worker is safe.

So that's really interesting and I wonder if maybe documentation like that will start to come, because we should have the RIGHT to control, in a group setting we're paying for, who has contact with him. As the family/POA, I have to advocate for that. They have their employer issues, but I have my responsibility.

I was referring to the legal responsibility the facilities have to residents. They're responsible for providing reasonable, standard practice, medically supported care for their residents, which is what people are paying them for.  So I wonder what would happen if they were asked about their decision to allow unvaccinated staff around the vulnerable population from the angle of being liable to provide a certain standard of care.  What would their insurers say about the facility allowing unvaccinated staff around the group of people most vulnerable to severe cases in their care? I wonder if you find out who insures them and ask the insurer what their policy is?  Or stating to the facility staff that you're interested in their take on unvaccinated staff from the liability angle and you want it from them in writing on this specific issue so you can compare it to their insurer's response to the same question.

[wathe]

45 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I so wanted to check and just haven't gotten it done. What are states doing right now with the flu vaccine? I sorta remember there was this same hubub with that years ago, with the health care workers wanting the choose and the employers requiring. I think our state recently backpedaled on it. I think there's just the dualing values that we have to work out.

 

Here, policy varies by employer.  A common hospital policy is:

• Those who have formal medical exemptions are accommodated like any other disability. If there is a flu outbreak, they are reassigned to a non-patient-facing role.
• Those who decline the vaccine by choice are treated differently.  If there is an outbreak, they are offered anti-viral prophylactic meds.  If they decline these, then they are placed on unpaid leave of absence until the outbreak is over.

ETA - to clarify I'm talking about hospitals.  I think that other local long term care facility  and other congregate living facility policies are similar.

Again ETA: I'm in Canada

Edited February 20, 2021 by wathe

[EKS]

3 minutes ago, wathe said:

Here, policy varies by employer.  A common policy is:

• Those who have formal medical exemptions are accommodated like any other disability. If there is a flu outbreak, they are reassigned to a non-patient-facing role.
• Those who decline the vaccine by choice are treated differently.  If there is an outbreak, they are offered anti-viral prophylactic meds.  If they decline these, then they are placed on unpaid leave of absence until the outbreak is over.

Is this in the United States?  Because I like this policy.

Edited February 20, 2021 by EKS

[Not_a_Number]

47 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I more often than not agree with Bill, but I do think he gets away with a condescending tone here no one else would.  It puzzles me regularly.

I think the trick is he doesn't care what you think about his tone much 😛 . What are you going to do, sue him? 😛 

ETA: I see that this sounded way snarkier than I intended!! Sorry about that. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[wathe]

6 minutes ago, EKS said:

Is this in the United States?  Because I like this policy.

Canada

[PeterPan]

16 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

So I wonder what would happen if they were asked about their decision to allow unvaccinated staff around the vulnerable population from the angle of being liable to provide a certain standard of care.  What would their insurers say about the facility allowing unvaccinated staff around the group of people most vulnerable to severe cases in their care?

I was assuming they are caught by the emergency use authorization and can't really "require" it the way they might a flu or whatever.

10 minutes ago, wathe said:

Here, policy varies by employer.  A common hospital policy is:

• Those who have formal medical exemptions are accommodated like any other disability. If there is a flu outbreak, they are reassigned to a non-patient-facing role.
• Those who decline the vaccine by choice are treated differently.  If there is an outbreak, they are offered anti-viral prophylactic meds.  If they decline these, then they are placed on unpaid leave of absence until the outbreak is over.

ETA - to clarify I'm talking about hospitals.  I think that other local long term care facility  and other congregate living facility policies are similar.

Wow, that's really complicated. So if that's how it works, then I wasn't crazy for saying my expectation is that anyone unvaccinated be repositioned away from direct contact with my dad. And that makes sense that they're probably working through employment conseqences, with the whole thing in flux and changing. Whereas before they were (presumably) paying people when off for quarantine, that could change with refusing a vaccine. So it sounds like as employers they have mess on their end they're sorting out. Interesting.

[catz]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think the trick is he doesn't care what you think about his tone much 😛 . What are you going to do, sue him? 😛 

LOL - I don't care at all and like I said I usually agree with him.  I actually don't blame him, I assume he is being himself.  I find the responses or lack of responses to him puzzling at times.  I have been here for many years and there's some history that goes way back.  Anyway - bowing out.  I have nothing against Bill personally.

[PeterPan]

2 minutes ago, wathe said:

Canada

But it sounds like how it could go down in the US too. Surely as employers they have opinions and financial consequences. I didn't really have that employer perspective to realize what they're hashing through. And the way it was handled for a year is now shifting. I think the corporate is handing down things so that there's flux, adapting to the new situations.

[wathe]

To be clear, I was talking specifically about influenza vaccine policy.  No-one has a covid vaccine policy yet.  But I expect it will evolve the same way, once vaccine supplies are stable and vaccine risk/benefit data is better established.

[PeterPan]

Just now, wathe said:

To be clear, I was talking specifically about influenza vaccine policy.  No-one has a covid vaccine policy yet.  But I expect it will evolve the same way, once vaccine supplies are stable and vaccine risk/benefit data is better established.

I think you're spot on, and it makes me feel better that I wasn't *crazy* with the things I was saying to the director about our expectations. 

[Not_a_Number]

9 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

LOL - I don't care at all and like I said I usually agree with him.  I actually don't blame him, I assume he is being himself.  I find the responses or lack of responses to him puzzling at times.  I have been here for many years and there's some history that goes way back.  Anyway - bowing out.  I have nothing against Bill personally.

Oh, I was actually seriously answering your question!! Not trying to be snarky at all. I just think a lot of us on this forum care about our relationships and the impressions we make on each other, and he cares... less 😛 . So then people don't bother saying anything about it, because they know he doesn't care. 

[bethben]

From what I understand in general, the vaccine doesn’t stop you from getting Covid, but reduces the symptoms so people could technically be asymptomatic or get Covid mildly.   IMO, that makes the vaccine more dangerous for the elderly population.  Basically, a person who is carrying Covid would come to work because they feel fine.  If they were sick, they would (in theory) stay home.  But because they are now asymptomatic because of the vaccine, they are now carrying it to vulnerable populations?  
 

Also, from what I understand of the vaccine, it is newish technology in that it causes your own cells to create a Covid spike of sorts —I know it’s a lot more complicated than that, but this is the skinny.  Then, instead of your cells learning how to defeat an inactive or weakened outside invader, the invader your body is destroying is your own cells.  That sounds like an autoimmune crisis just waiting to happen.  When your body destroys its own cells, that’s an autoimmune disease.  My thought is that the nurses who are rejecting the vaccine have a decent level of education in biology and very much understand why they are rejecting the vaccine.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, bethben said:

From what I understand in general, the vaccine doesn’t stop you from getting Covid, but reduces the symptoms so people could technically be asymptomatic or get Covid mildly.

I don't believe that's correct. Last I checked, the vaccine seriously reduces transmissibility as well as symptoms. 

Anyone know if I'm right about that? I haven't kept good track, but I thought there was starting to be data about that. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

4 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I more often than not agree with Bill, but I do think he gets away with a condescending tone here no one else would.  It puzzles me regularly.

Or people aren’t seeing his posts. 😉

ETA: I can see his posts. Just sayin.

Edited February 20, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[bethben]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I don't believe that's correct. Last I checked, the vaccine seriously reduces transmissibility as well as symptoms. 

Anyone know if I'm right about that? I haven't kept good track, but I thought there was starting to be data about that. 

All I know is that when I last checked, they were still requiring vaccinated people to continue wearing masks and social distance because they can still get it.  My mom just got her first shot and was basically told she can still get Covid.

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, bethben said:

All I know is that when I last checked, they were still requiring vaccinated people to continue wearing masks and social distance because they can still get it.  My mom just got her first shot and was basically told she can still get Covid.

There's a difference between "they can still get it," which is certainly true, and "they are just as likely to spread the virus as before," which I think is false. If their chance of spreading the virus is now much lower, they are safer to have around other people. 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, bethben said:

Then, instead of your cells learning how to defeat an inactive or weakened outside invader, the invader your body is destroying is your own cells.  

It's not destroying your own cells. It's destroying proteins created by your cells. Most viruses will use your body's mechanisms to create more copies of themselves, so it's not attacking a part of your own body any more than an immune system attacking a virus that replicated within your body is attacking a part of your body. 

[bethben]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

It's not destroying your own cells. It's destroying proteins created by your cells. Most viruses will use your body's mechanisms to create more copies of themselves, so it's not attacking a part of your own body any more than an immune system attacking a virus that replicated within your body is attacking a part of your body. 

But, the proteins are attached to your cells.  The protein is not separated from your own body cell.  It is using the RNA of your cell to create the spike of Covid protein that now becomes part of your cell.  I have gone to original sources on this vaccine because I’ve lately not been a fan of accepting what is being distilled out there lately.  Unless there is new research (which there could be), I’m sticking with what I’ve learned.  Last time I checked, the cdc had given this scenario as to how these rna vaccines work.  

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, EKS said:

I think that if a health care worker choses to refuse the vaccine, they have to be prepared for their employer to choose to replace them with a vaccinated individual.

The UK courts are of the opinion that new employees can have accepting a vaccine written into their contracts but not existing employees.  It's not that easy to sack and rehire long-term employees here.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, bethben said:

But, the proteins are attached to your cells.  The protein is not separated from your own body cell.

I am not sure what you mean by that. It's not any more attached to your cell than the virus. The virus goes inside your cells. So do the proteins. 

[Not_a_Number]

@bethben: here's an article explaining a bit about how this virus interacts with cells: 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/coronaviruses-hijack-lysosomes-exit-cells

A quote from the article: 

"SARS-CoV-2, like most viruses, enters and infects cells, and then uses the cell’s protein-making machinery to make multiple copies of itself. It must then escape the cell." 

So, this virus does what most viruses do: it uses your own body's protein-making machinery to make stuff it wants. This is much like the mRNA vaccines, except the mRNA vaccines don't instruct your body to make copies of the virus: they only instruct your body to make (relatively harmless) copies of the spike protein. 

So the materials being used by the virus and by the vaccines are the same materials. The results aren't "attached" to your cells in either case. They are just kinda floating around in your cytoplasm, last I checked.

(I've been reading about viruses and DNA with DD8 for ages, lol. We've had a whole year focused on cellular-level biology, by her request. Apparently, I now know way more about viruses than I used to.) 

[Tap]

I work in health care and I know people who are refusing

for religious reasons,

or they have contraindicated health care reasons,

or pregnancy,

or they are anti-vax,

or they have someone at home advising them not to,

or they are waiting for a different manufacturer's vaccine to become available to them,

or they feel it is too new and worry about long term,

or they worry about the severe side effects that a select few are having,

or they think/know they already had COVID,

or they have conspiracy theory leanings,

or they don't like how the vaccine works.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Tap

[wathe]

36 minutes ago, bethben said:

From what I understand in general, the vaccine doesn’t stop you from getting Covid, but reduces the symptoms so people could technically be asymptomatic or get Covid mildly.   IMO, that makes the vaccine more dangerous for the elderly population.  Basically, a person who is carrying Covid would come to work because they feel fine.  If they were sick, they would (in theory) stay home.  But because they are now asymptomatic because of the vaccine, they are now carrying it to vulnerable populations?  
 

Also, from what I understand of the vaccine, it is newish technology in that it causes your own cells to create a Covid spike of sorts —I know it’s a lot more complicated than that, but this is the skinny.  Then, instead of your cells learning how to defeat an inactive or weakened outside invader, the invader your body is destroying is your own cells.  That sounds like an autoimmune crisis just waiting to happen.  When your body destroys its own cells, that’s an autoimmune disease.  My thought is that the nurses who are rejecting the vaccine have a decent level of education in biology and very much understand why they are rejecting the vaccine.  

 

35 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't believe that's correct. Last I checked, the vaccine seriously reduces transmissibility as well as symptoms. 

Anyone know if I'm right about that? I haven't kept good track, but I thought there was starting to be data about that. 

 

32 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

There's a difference between "they can still get it," which is certainly true, and "they are just as likely to spread the virus as before," which I think is false. If their chance of spreading the virus is now much lower, they are safer to have around other people. 

I think the data on vaccination and transmission in vaccinated people just doesn't exist yet (or at least not in a robust way).  I think the data will show that the vaccine actually does decrease transmission substantially.  But, loosening policy based on guesses is unwise.  I think that policy will be relaxed once the data support it.

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, wathe said:

I think the data on vaccination and transmission in vaccinated people just doesn't exist yet (or at least not in a robust way).  I think the data will show that the vaccine actually does decrease transmission substantially.  But, loosening policy based on guesses is unwise.  I think that policy will be relaxed once the data support it.

Oh, sure, agreed. 

Do you know if there's any data so far? I've really not been paying enough attention. 

[Not_a_Number]

OK, looking around, it looks like there's now plenty of data that vaccination reduces viral load, which ought to decrease transmissibility... but I don't think we'll have actual data about transmission patterns for a good while yet. 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

But it sounds like how it could go down in the US too. Surely as employers they have opinions and financial consequences. I didn't really have that employer perspective to realize what they're hashing through. And the way it was handled for a year is now shifting. I think the corporate is handing down things so that there's flux, adapting to the new situations.

I think that will only work if all or most long term care facilities in an area do it. Already, most such facilities have incredibly high turnover among staff. So if only a few are requiring vaccines, then workers who don’t want to comply or face consequences for non-compliance will just move on to a different job. I think it’s far easier to require vaccines when you are a sought after employer who has lots of people who want to work for you. I don’t think most  long term care facilities are in that position.

At the hospital here, when employees don’t get the flu vaccine, they are required to mask for all of flu season. Since everyone is already masking for covid regardless of whether or not they got the vaccine, currently there really is no consequence. 

[Ausmumof3]

26 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, looking around, it looks like there's now plenty of data that vaccination reduces viral load, which ought to decrease transmissibility... but I don't think we'll have actual data about transmission patterns for a good while yet. 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00448-7/fulltext
 

i think this study separates out SARS Cov 2 infection from COVID 19 disease,  which would give some indication.

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

The other interesting thing to come out of this thread is that gap between black and white democrats on vaccine acceptance. My dad lives in a very high % black city in his state, so that is probably leading to some of the stats for where he lives also. I don't know exactly what % of his staff are black, but I can tell you just from occasional observation that it's probably higher than the 28% rate for his city. I'm guessing 50% or more. 

So that director has a lot of hills to climb to get people on board, and he heard from us that it matters to us. 

I feel like as a society we have these competing values we have to hash out. I'm all for freedom of choice, especially on what goes into your body, BUT I have to advocate for what is best for my dad. And being quarantined repeatedly because people around him constantly are not vaccinated is not for his good. I HAVE to advocate that the people who are around him the most (direct exposure, significant amounts of time) be vaccinated. I wouldn't be doing my duty if I didn't. 

And I agree, those are competing values, my dad's freedom of movement and your right to choose what goes in your body. And our society has to work that out, because I don't want my dad locked up any more. Plain and simple. His apartment is 394 sq feet and he's been trapped in there for 2 weeks every time ANY staff member, even with no contact with him, tests positive. I kid you not. Over and over for almost a year now. And I want it to end. And don't tell me your right to choose means my dad needs to be locked up again, because that's absurd. We have to find a way to work it out as a society so you have your freedoms AND my dad has his.

I agree. And I’m very pro masking and am distancing. To me what that situation reads as is the staff are too lazy or understaffed to keep controls on staff interaction.  If your dad interacts with staff person A and the place has no way to know if staff person A came into contact with staff person B who got sick - are they requiring everyone on that shift to quarantine or just the elderly they don’t really want to deal with anyways? Because otherwise it makes no sense and I’d be furious too.  I’d be more than furious. I’d refuse and be willing to bring a lawsuit if they couldn’t prove their reasoning.  The power some medical facilities are claiming to have exceeds even what police have wrt detaining people.

[melmichigan]

30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh, sure, agreed. 

Do you know if there's any data so far? I've really not been paying enough attention. 

This was in my inbox today:

Vaccine and transmission: An update

The biggest lingering question of the pandemic

Katelyn Jetelina Feb 20

The biggest, lingering question of the pandemic is: Does the COVID19 vaccine reduce transmission? Not all vaccines do, so this is important to figure out so we know what we can and cannot do (like stop wearing masks or visit non-vaccinated people). 

Yesterday, two studies came out of Israel. A lot will start coming out from this country because 32% of their population is full vaccinated. This is the first place where we have “real world” data (opposed to a nicely controlled randomized clinical trial), so we can learn a LOT. 

The first wasn’t really a study (by my standards) but a leaked report prepared by Israel's Health Ministry and Pfizer. I have yet to see this “leaked report” (I don’t have connections in this area), but Reuters got a copy. This is what they reported: 

• The study used a national database of the health records of hundreds of thousands of Israelis 

• The Pfizer vaccine reduced asymptomatic infection (i.e. transmission) by 89.4%

So far, Pfizer and Israel’s Health Ministry have “no comment”. But if this is confirmed, this is massive news (thus, why it was probably leaked). This will likely be the “ah ha” study we have all been waiting for. But, before we get excited, we really have to wait until other scientists (with no conflicts of interest) assess the rigor of the findings and point out any biases or mistakes. There is incredible value in peer-reviewed science.

The second study was published in the Lancet (and, thus, peer-reviewed). This study isn’t as exciting, though, because it’s a study within a study. In other words, the scientists didn’t intend to study transmission, so the sample is small and there are some limitations to the data. Nonetheless, this is what the scientists found:

• The study was based in Israel’s Sheba Medical Center where they are following 7,214 hospital staff who received their first Pfizer dose in January 

• There was an 75% reduction in asymptomatic COVID-19 cases detected by testing

We can add both of these to our growing list that I will entitle: Glimmers of Reduced Transmission Hope. If you’re counting, there are now 4 sub-studies and 1 leaked report. All have found that the vaccine reduces transmission by ~60-80%. The other three sub-studies are:

1. Moderna FDA report: 38 people in the placebo group had asymptomatic infection while 14 in the vaccine group had asymptomatic infection. 

2. Moderna tested 34 people for neutralizing antibodies over time. 119 days after the vaccine, everyone still had these antibodies.

3. AstraZeneca study, which I talked about HERE

    

Love, YLE

You can find her updates here.

 

[sassenach]

2 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Or people aren’t seeing his posts. 😉

 

+1

Edited February 20, 2021 by sassenach

[Hyacinth]

2 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I more often than not agree with Bill, but I do think he gets away with a condescending tone here no one else would.  It puzzles me regularly.

Maybe people have blocked him?

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Hyacinth said:

Maybe people have blocked him?

I think that's been implied upthread, lol!! 

[Halftime Hope]

On 2/19/2021 at 11:08 AM, ktgrok said:

I thought the new info was that a fully vaccinated person does NOT have to quarantine if exposed?

As for not getting it there are a myriad of reasons, most boiling down to distrust. 

From what I've seen from medical administration and policy setting bodies, I have greater distrust of the medical establishment than I ever did prior to the pandemic.  Note: I'm not including front line workers in this, but they have little to no say in actual treatment protocols.  As of last week, I lost someone near and dear to me, and it was entirely avoidable.   I understand the mistrust. 

[Halftime Hope]

On 2/19/2021 at 2:36 PM, PeterPan said:

 

I don't know. There was a black gentleman (sports figure, I forget) who took the vaccine publicly and then died. I'm not sure it has worked out well.

Hank Aaron -- 17 days, I believe. 

[Halftime Hope]

On 2/19/2021 at 3:15 PM, Corraleno said:

If you're talking about Hank Aaron, he died of natural causes at the age of 86 several weeks after he was vaccinated. There was no connection between the vaccine and his death, although of course that didn't stop anti-vaxxers from exploiting his death to further their agenda.

 

Per the coroner,  the coroner's office was not able to confirm that he died of natural causes since they never received the body and no autopsy was ever done.  No one, not even his doctor,  can definitively say what he died from without an autopsy. 

I'm not sure I would want my family member's body autopsied in their old age either, but we should be careful to be stay within the known facts.

[Halftime Hope]

On 2/19/2021 at 3:28 PM, Corraleno said:

I wonder if the people who won't accept the Moderna & Pfizer vaccines will be OK with the J&J shot. If they're worried about the newness of the mRNA technology, or they think it will change their DNA, or Bill Gates put microchips in there, or whatever, then maybe an "old school" vaccine like J&J will be more acceptable to them?

I will raise my hand on this one.  I'm not sure what the long term ramifications of mRNA injections are -- no one does -- and if I have to be vaccinated, I'd prefer known vs. the unknown.  I remember Paul Offit saying in an interview last March that, so far, our track record with mRNA vaxxes hasn't been that great; I did some reading, and he was right.  I'm hoping technology has advanced and that the variants won't hide a nasty side-effect, but I have no factual basis for that hope.  

[wathe]

Tangent:  Autopsies aren't done on the vast majority of decedents in Canada, and American data is similar  - only about 5% are autopsied.   MD's are good at determining the cause of death without an autopsy - it's not usually much of a mystery.  The vast majority of cause of death data is based on MD clinical judgement rather than autopsy. 

I'm not familiar with the Aaron case, but presumably, if the coroner wasn't satisfied that the manner of death was natural (vs accident, injury including injury from medication or vaccine injury, homocide, suicide, misadventure etc), then the coroner could have and would have investigated and ordered an autopsy.  I presume that since the coroner didn't, then the coroner was satisfied that the cause of death was natural.

All the news reports that come up on my quick google search say things like "The Fulton County Medical Examiner's office on Monday confirmed Hank Aaron died of natural causes" but don't link to the coroner's original statement or press release. Some state than an autopsy wasn't done.  I didn't see anything that suggested the coroner's office was questioning/uncertain about or the manner of death.   @Halftime HopeDo you have a link you could share?  I'm interested in the details.

[Not_a_Number]

34 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I will raise my hand on this one.  I'm not sure what the long term ramifications of mRNA injections are -- no one does -- and if I have to be vaccinated, I'd prefer known vs. the unknown.  I remember Paul Offit saying in an interview last March that, so far, our track record with mRNA vaxxes hasn't been that great; I did some reading, and he was right.  I'm hoping technology has advanced and that the variants won't hide a nasty side-effect, but I have no factual basis for that hope.  

What nasty side-effects have they had? I haven't read about that. I thought mRNA vaccines basically haven't been used much at all until now. 

[wathe]

40 minutes ago, 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. 

So the ME did examine his body.  Thanks, that's helpful.   Is this routine in the US for all deaths, does anyone know?  Here, bodies go straight from hospital to funeral home, unless there is an indication for a coroner's case (any manner of death other than natural)

(My province has a Coroner system rather than a Medical Examiner system)

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by wathe

[Not_a_Number]

11 minutes ago, kand said:

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. 

We knew this would happen. We knew that since we were vaccinating a population of vulnerable people, lots of them WOULD die right after the vaccine, because frankly, a lot of them are expected to die in that time period. 

The only way you could tell that there was a vaccine effect would be by doing a statistical comparison of a vaccinated and unvaccinated group for some limited time post-vaccination.