S/o Sick Shaming

[MEmama]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Given that some vaccinated people also can get and spread Covid, I don't see the problem here, unless students are outright lied to.

One hopes that the message would be:  "Except for individuals who have documented exceptions, vaccination is required to live on campus."  That would put all students on notice that it is possible some of their classmates / dormmates could be unvaccinated.  A student with serious concerns could ask the administration:  "What are the valid documented exceptions?"  "Is there any way to make sure I am not placed in a bedroom with someone who is not vaccinated?"  "What are my options if I am high risk for Covid complications?"

I just don’t understand why you are arguing that a medically fragile student (and thus unvaxxed by necessity) should share a room with a student who decided not to be vaxxed— without being given that information so they can make an informed decision? What school would want to take on that kind of liability? 
 

30 years ago when I was in college people with exemptions typically had their own room. I’d suppose that’s probably true today (especially during a pandemic!) but I can’t know for sure. Maybe someone here in that situation will be willing to chime in. Is this really an issue? Are kids really being denied the right to know potentially life alternating information about their own roommates? 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

Your post is more evidence of why we need links to specific comments in order to be able to discuss this in a beneficial or meaningful way. No offense, but your paraphrasing of something you say you remember doesn't tell us anything except how you interpreted the comment. That's all.

Well I think it would say something about me if I kept an archive of links of things people shouldn't have said.  Do people do that?

I'm not the only person who has seen the sick-shaming and ill-wishes happen.  If I were the only person, I could see wondering if it was my imagination.

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, MEmama said:

I just don’t understand why you are arguing that a medically fragile student (and thus unvaxxed by necessity) should share a room with a student who decided not to be vaxxed— without being given that information so they can make an informed decision? What school would want to take on that kind of liability? 
 

30 years ago when I was in college people with exemptions typically had their own room. I’d suppose that’s probably true today (especially during a pandemic!) but I can’t know for sure. Maybe someone here in that situation will be willing to chime in. Is this really an issue? Are kids really being denied the right to know potentially life alternating information about their own roommates? 

I didn't say the bolded.  That is several degrees away from what I said.

"Decided not to be vaxed" is not the same as having a medical exemption.

I also said people can ask about the very concern you are sharing.  Universities will need to figure out how to accommodate those who need special consideration.

I could also see universities asking if vaxed individuals are willing to share with an unvaxed individual.  I would totally volunteer to do that, and I'm sure many others would as well.

What I don't agree with is making those with the medical exemptions essentially wear a mark of the devil.  It's not necessary.  There are other ways to handle this without breaching privacy.

[MEmama]

24 minutes ago, SKL said:

Given that some vaccinated people also can get and spread Covid, I don't see the problem here, unless students are outright lied to.

One hopes that the message would be:  "Except for individuals who have documented exceptions, vaccination is required to live on campus."  That would put all students on notice that it is possible some of their classmates / dormmates could be unvaccinated.  A student with serious concerns could ask the administration:  "What are the valid documented exceptions?"  "Is there any way to make sure I am not placed in a bedroom with someone who is not vaccinated?"  "What are my options if I am high risk for Covid complications?"

I don’t think @Bootsie is claiming they should be lied to, just denied the right to know. I can’t for anything understand why withholding Very Important Information would be okay—especially in the middle of a pandemic. 
 

To the second part, sure, that’s fine wording. But she seems to be saying that the students should not be given the right to know. So they can ask questions but no accommodation will be made for the medically fragile or concerned? It’s just a very weird argument to me.

Edited August 5, 2021 by MEmama

[MEmama]

Ooop

Edited August 5, 2021 by MEmama

[Pawz4me]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well I think it would say something about me if I kept an archive of links of things people shouldn't have said.  Do people do that?

I'm not the only person who has seen the sick-shaming and ill-wishes happen.  If I were the only person, I could see wondering if it was my imagination.

Well, it may be common but apparently it's not so common that either you or the OP can find anything to link. Perhaps someone else will be able to. Personally, if I started a thread complaining about something that was said on this forum--and apparently more than one time--you can bet I'd link to or quote specific examples. We regularly ask people to "show your work" and this is certainly a situation where that's called for, IMO.

[MEmama]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

I didn't say the bolded.  That is several degrees away from what I said.

"Decided not to be vaxed" is not the same as having a medical exemption.

I also said people can ask about the very concern you are sharing.  Universities will need to figure out how to accommodate those who need special consideration.

I could also see universities asking if vaxed individuals are willing to share with an unvaxed individual.  I would totally volunteer to do that, and I'm sure many others would as well.

What I don't agree with is making those with the medical exemptions essentially wear a mark of the devil.  It's not necessary.  There are other ways to handle this without breaching privacy.

Right, you did not. @Bootsie is making that argument. Sorry I was too hasty and confused in my answer. I think I responded to the rest in my above response. 

[MEmama]

This isn’t a productive conversation so I’m bowing out. 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

Well, it may be common but apparently it's not so common that either you or the OP can find anything to link. Perhaps someone else will be able to. Personally, if I started a thread complaining about something that was said on this forum--and apparently more than one time--you can bet I'd link to or quote specific examples. We regularly ask people to "show your work" and this is certainly a situation where that's called for, IMO.

Well it would be a lot of work to go back over all the Covid-related posts over the past 1.5 years to pick out the ones that involved shaming.  Most of us have other priorities.

And why people don't usually quote such comments might be because we ourselves would rather not participate in ad hominem shaming (in this case, shame-shaming).

There is a double standard here.  We don't in fact require everyone to post links every time they make an observation or complaint about human nature. 

If you haven't seen this happen and don't trust the people who posted about it, you are free to decline to discuss, by all means.

[pinball]

Is it shaming sick people to say the unvaccinated deserve what they get? Or that maybe they should pay for their own care (insurance shouldn’t pay)?

If so, Here’s a quote…

“I also find it hard. And I find it especially hard that so many people I know who are usually compassionate and kind are reaching a breaking point where they don't care and think the people who refuse to get vaccinated deserve what they get. There's a part of me that feels that way too, but the suffering is so big. I don't want to feel that way. They've been misled by conspiracy theories and hatred.”

another:

”Although I doubt this could actually be instituted, I wonder if it would make a difference if unvaccinated hospitalized people had to pay for their care rather than it being covered by insurance?”

[Pawz4me]

11 minutes ago, pinball said:

Is it shaming sick people to say the unvaccinated deserve what they get? Or that maybe they should pay for their own care (insurance shouldn’t pay)?

If so, Here’s a quote…

“I also find it hard. And I find it especially hard that so many people I know who are usually compassionate and kind are reaching a breaking point where they don't care and think the people who refuse to get vaccinated deserve what they get. There's a part of me that feels that way too, but the suffering is so big. I don't want to feel that way. They've been misled by conspiracy theories and hatred.”

another:

”Although I doubt this could actually be instituted, I wonder if it would make a difference if unvaccinated hospitalized people had to pay for their care rather than it being covered by insurance?”

Again, I want links so we can read the entire context. I'm wary of snippets that may mean something entirely different when read as part of a bigger conversation. But of those two snippets -- No, I don't see any shaming at all. Quite the opposite. I "see" what sound like good, decent people trying to do their best to make sense of things that don't make any logical sense at all (people not making any attempt to protect themselves or others) and trying to figure out something that might incentivize people to help protect themselves and others. There's not one iota of shaming there.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Pawz4me

[pinball]

Just now, Pawz4me said:

Again, I want links so we can read the entire context. I'm wary of snippets that may mean something entirely different when read as part of a bigger conversation. But of those two snippets -- No, I don't see any shaming at all. Quite the opposite. I "see" what sound like good, decent people trying to do their best to make sense of things that don't many any logical sense at all (people not making any attempt to protect themselves or others) and trying to figure out something that might incentivize people to. There's not one iota of shaming there.

OK, so you don’t think it’s shaming?

I won’t link then. 
 

[Jean in Newcastle]

17 minutes ago, pinball said:

Is it shaming sick people to say the unvaccinated deserve what they get? Or that maybe they should pay for their own care (insurance shouldn’t pay)?

If so, Here’s a quote…

“I also find it hard. And I find it especially hard that so many people I know who are usually compassionate and kind are reaching a breaking point where they don't care and think the people who refuse to get vaccinated deserve what they get. There's a part of me that feels that way too, but the suffering is so big. I don't want to feel that way. They've been misled by conspiracy theories and hatred.”

another:

”Although I doubt this could actually be instituted, I wonder if it would make a difference if unvaccinated hospitalized people had to pay for their care rather than it being covered by insurance?”

Someone expressing their struggle with handling the suffering going on in the world is not shaming.  She specifically said that she doesn't want to feel that way.  She finds it hard.  She does have part of her feeling that way but she's fighting it specifically because she realizes that people have been misled.

The second quote is wondering if a change in payment would change behavior.  There is no expression of wanting people to be denied medical care or to go into debt.  But as I just said upthread, this is starting to happen.  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/some-health-insurers-ending-waivers-covid-treatment-fees-n1265422

[pinball]

5 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Someone expressing their struggle with handling the suffering going on in the world is not shaming.  She specifically said that she doesn't want to feel that way.  She finds it hard.  She does have part of her feeling that way but she's fighting it specifically because she realizes that people have been misled.

The second quote is wondering if a change in payment would change behavior.  There is no expression of wanting people to be denied medical care or to go into debt.  But as I just said upthread, this is starting to happen.  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/some-health-insurers-ending-waivers-covid-treatment-fees-n1265422

If someone says…”people…don't care and think the people who refuse to get vaccinated deserve what they get. There's a part of me that feels that way too” then the person who wrote “part of me feels that way too” also feels the unvaccinated deserve what they get.

that’s just basic reading comprehension, no?

[Jean in Newcastle]

2 minutes ago, pinball said:

If someone says…”people…don't care and think the people who refuse to get vaccinated deserve what they get. There's a part of me that feels that way too” then the person who wrote “part of me feels that way too” also feels the unvaccinated deserve what they get.

that’s just basic reading comprehension, no?

No. Basic reading comprehension doesn't leave out the "but the suffering is so big.  I don't want to feel that way.  They've been misled by conspiracy theories and hatred."

Edited August 5, 2021 by Jean in Newcastle
punctuation

[TexasProud]

21 minutes ago, pinball said:

OK, so you don’t think it’s shaming?

I won’t link then. 
 

No I do not. I see people struggling with anger at how it affect them and compassion for what is going to happen to them.  This isn't an either or.  You can care about people and still be frustrated and angry with them. 

[TexasProud]

Just now, Plum said:

The word schadenfreude comes to mind...

Texas GOP leader rails against vaccines and masks. Then he died from covid. WaPo

So would this be an example of sick shaming? 

If so, I tend to see this reserved for politicians who make laws and cause problems for others. And I agree we have sick shamed. People have wished the Florida governor dead. But "regular" people not so much.

[pinball]

LOL, people wondering what gaslighting means should read some of these responses.

 

[MEmama]

9 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

So would this be an example of sick shaming? 

If so, I tend to see this reserved for politicians who make laws and cause problems for others. And I agree we have sick shamed. People have wished the Florida governor dead. But "regular" people not so much.

Well the article is definitely full of public health shaming!

Its an upside down world we live in right now. 😞 

[Faith-manor]

On the topic mentioned in the snippets, I think there is a very real danger there due to largely not well regulated capitalism. We have for-profit healthcare system based on insurance which bribes politicians with lots of campaign dollars to pretty much do what it wants. So, forget sick shaming as individuals, there is a real possibility that they will institute policies such as lowering coverage for unvaccinated individuals. That in turns often ends up falling on the taxpayers because medical bankruptcy has a cost to us all. On top of that, medical rationing already happening for many unable to afford their prescription meds, copays, or deductibles cause tens of thousands of deaths when not in the midst of a pandemic. Insurance companies deciding to increase profits to major investors by changing covid coverage for the unvaccinated could be absolutely catastrophic to this nation financially, and then horrific as the death toll rises due to people not going to the hospital with covid when they really should. and if allowed to do this, what else will they dream up not to cover?

Dystopian. I feel like we have fallen into some kind of Hunger Games type novel.

The system is just so broken. We desperately need universal healthcare. This pandemic just highlights how bad a for profit system is for the country.

[SKL]

I agree that there is a possibility that insurance companies could charge higher rates for people who do not have the Covid vax, like they already do for certain other differences like smoking.

I don't follow insurance stuff much, but maybe this has already been decided at some level.  I don't believe they could do it retroactively though.

And it seems to me that the majority of individuals affected would be insured by Medicare or Medicaid, so premium adjustments wouldn't be a meaningful tool for those groups.

[Innisfree]

Just now, Plum said:

Well I don't know anything about this GOP leader or what he's done before covid. Did he do nothing good in his lifetime? Does he have a family he left behind? I assume he was more than this one thing, so yeah I'd say it was sick shaming.

The article talked about all those things, though. His wife and young son also got Covid. His colleagues described his work. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just now, SKL said:

I agree that there is a possibility that insurance companies could charge higher rates for people who do not have the Covid vax, like they already do for certain other differences like smoking.

I don't follow insurance stuff much, but maybe this has already been decided at some level.  I don't believe they could do it retroactively though.

And it seems to me that the majority of individuals affected would be insured by Medicare or Medicaid, so premium adjustments wouldn't be a meaningful tool for those groups.

I am not talking about charging higher rates for people who do not have the Covid vax.  (Though at some point they might do that, I have seen no articles quoting insurance companies who are contemplating that.)  I am talking about them simply going back to the normal 80/20 split or whatever is in your insurance contract. 

Average cost of hospital care for COVID-19 ranges from $51,000 to $78,000, based on age | Healthcare Finance News.Nov 5, 2020

 

Let's hope that I can do the math right.  If you take the lower number, $51,000, then the patient's 20% portion is still $10,200.  And that's only if you still have the very good 80/20 kind of health insurance.  Many people don't. 

 

This is important because it needs to start being thought of as part of the risk equation. 

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I am not talking about charging higher rates for people who do not have the Covid vax.  (Though at some point they might do that, I have seen no articles quoting insurance companies who are contemplating that.)  I am talking about them simply going back to the normal 80/20 split or whatever is in your insurance contract. 

Average cost of hospital care for COVID-19 ranges from $51,000 to $78,000, based on age | Healthcare Finance News.Nov 5, 2020

 

Let's hope that I can do the math right.  If you take the lower number, $51,000, then the patient's 20% portion is still $10,200.  And that's only if you still have the very good 80/20 kind of health insurance.  Many people don't. 

 

This is important because it needs to start being thought of as part of the risk equation. 

To be honest, I didn't remember that the insurance companies were waiving that.  That's nice of them (though I don't know who's actually funding it).  I have always assumed I'm stuck with whatever I negotiated with the insurance company - in my case, a not-small deductible followed by some ratio (probably 80/20) with a maximum out-of-pocket.  Usually I have to pay everything out of pocket. 

TBH I would probably be one of those people who waited until I was unable to breathe before seeking medical care.  (And I suppose my saying that will get me shamed.)  I do think it's very unlikely that my kids or I would ever get to that point.

[rebot]

53 minutes ago, Plum said:

The word schadenfreude comes to mind...

Thank you for introducing me to this word. My son and I have been trying to out do each other with new words at dinner. We have to use a new, unknown word to both of us that fits logically into our dinner conversation. Pretty sure you just won it for me tonight.

[Lady Florida.]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

I think it would be helpful if there was a public education campaign to explain succinctly and clearly how it was that operation warp speed produced vaccines so quickly. It seems that those who feel nervous about that believe that there were steps that were skipped or rushed. I think it would be really helpful and useful to make clear to people that all the steps were followed and all the data was collected for just as long, it’s just that there was massive funding and removal of red tape that allowed all of the steps to happen all at the same time, rather than having to do one thing and wait for approval or funding for the next thing and then do the next thing and then wait for the next one, etc. nothing was skipped. That’s why we are still waiting for the kid vaccines to be approved, because they have to do all the steps.

I wish the media would jump on this more. The information is out there but not making headlines. It briefly was covered but with so many hesitant people I think it should stay front and center. 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccine-development-speed

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-did-we-develop-a-covid-19-vaccine-so-quickly#Funding-for-COVID-19-vaccine-research

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-it-was-possible-to-develop-covid-19-vaccines-so-quickly#Administrative-logistics-were-pushed-through

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, MEmama said:

I don’t think @Bootsie is claiming they should be lied to, just denied the right to know. I can’t for anything understand why withholding Very Important Information would be okay—especially in the middle of a pandemic. 
 

To the second part, sure, that’s fine wording. But she seems to be saying that the students should not be given the right to know. So they can ask questions but no accommodation will be made for the medically fragile or concerned? It’s just a very weird argument to me.

First, I am not saying anything about what I think should be the case.  If a school has a policy that "Vaccine X is required unless you have a medical exemption," I can conclude that people I come in contact with have Vaccine X UNLESS they have a medical exemption.  I cannot conclude whether an individual person has Vaccine X or not.  I think in most cases the fact that a medical exemption is in place would be a student's private medical information and could not be revealed to another student (without that student's permission) just because the other student thinks they have a right to know.  

[Dmmetler]

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I didn't say the bolded.  That is several degrees away from what I said.

"Decided not to be vaxed" is not the same as having a medical exemption.

I also said people can ask about the very concern you are sharing.  Universities will need to figure out how to accommodate those who need special consideration.

I could also see universities asking if vaxed individuals are willing to share with an unvaxed individual.  I would totally volunteer to do that, and I'm sure many others would as well.

What I don't agree with is making those with the medical exemptions essentially wear a mark of the devil.  It's not necessary.  There are other ways to handle this without breaching privacy.

Only about 700 schools, out of over 4000 in the USA, are requiring vaccination or exemptions for this fall. There is a big difference between not knowing your roommate’s vaccination status at a school where only a few people aren’t vaccinated, and are those with health conditions precluding vaccination,  and attending a school where they aren’t even asking at the school level. Of the top 5 schools my teen chose from, only one is mandating vaccination, and only 3 are requiring masking, one of which is the one requiring vaccination, as they have adjusted their policies as more information about Delta came out. 
 

 

[Dmmetler]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

First, I am not saying anything about what I think should be the case.  If a school has a policy that "Vaccine X is required unless you have a medical exemption," I can conclude that people I come in contact with have Vaccine X UNLESS they have a medical exemption.  I cannot conclude whether an individual person has Vaccine X or not.  I think in most cases the fact that a medical exemption is in place would be a student's private medical information and could not be revealed to another student (without that student's permission) just because the other student thinks they have a right to know.  

Or, the school simply has a policy that a medical exemption for COVID means that you get a private room this fall. Period. That seems like the best way of managing things, since that would give the non-vaccinated student greater social distancing from others, which is important since they have a greater chance of infection and vaccinated students, if infected, are more likely to have mild or asymptomatic cases. 

[Bootsie]

53 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Frankly it is bizarre to see people claim that raising the possibility of unvaxxed people paying more for insurance or a greater share of their healthcare costs is "shaming." 

Like I wrote on the other thread, do people not know how our system works? 

Before the ACA was passed, you could lose your insurance based on random items in your medical record from years before. 

There are all kinds of incentives built into our healthcare system to encourage certain behavior. You can get discounts for joining a gym or WeightWatchers. Your ER co-pay is higher than the Urgent Care co-pay. Why is that? Before laws were passed in most states, people would be stuck with ER bills because the payor would determine that it wasn't actually an emergency after the fact. 

How many times have people written posts on this forum about "personal responsibility." I'm pretty sure that I could begin a thread here today about a hard-luck case and some people would respond that they shouldn't expect a handout. They should have gone to school...whatever, i.e. "personal responsibility."

So alight, let's have "personal responsibility" in a capitalist economy and see how you like it when it's teeth are directed at you and not those "other people." (not "you" you, general "you") 

I would not consider charging unvaxed people more for insurance "shaming" but if we find that acceptable there are many other behaviors we have to decide if it is acceptable to charge more for insurance like:  not using sunscreen, eating more than X calories a day, not getting enough Vitamin C, consuming too much sugar, playing contact sports, not get enough sleep, not getting X hours of exercise per week, having unprotected sex, not getting a flu shot, not getting a pneumonia shot.... I don't know that "shaming" is the word I would use but it definitely delineates what, according to my value system are acceptable choices for others to make that impact their health. 

[Bootsie]

5 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

Or, the school simply has a policy that a medical exemption for COVID means that you get a private room this fall. Period. That seems like the best way of managing things, since that would give the non-vaccinated student greater social distancing from others, which is important since they have a greater chance of infection and vaccinated students, if infected, are more likely to have mild or asymptomatic cases. 

Yes, I would agree that is a way for a university to handle medical exemptions for COVID vaccines if they have enough single rooms relative to the need. 

[TexasProud]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would not consider charging unvaxed people more for insurance "shaming" but if we find that acceptable there are many other behaviors we have to decide if it is acceptable to charge more for insurance like:  not using sunscreen, eating more than X calories a day, not getting enough Vitamin C, consuming too much sugar, playing contact sports, not get enough sleep, not getting X hours of exercise per week, having unprotected sex, not getting a flu shot, not getting a pneumonia shot.... I don't know that "shaming" is the word I would use but it definitely delineates what, according to my value system are acceptable choices for others to make that impact their health. 

Don't you have to do physicals and surveys and such for some insurance?

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, TexasProud said:

Don't you have to do physicals and surveys and such for some insurance?

Yes, and the things that can either preclude someone from getting insurance or cause them to pay a higher rate are determined by our values as a society of what things we are OK with judging one and what things we are not.  

[rebot]

4 hours ago, KSera said:

I think it would be helpful if there was a public education campaign to explain succinctly and clearly how it was that operation warp speed produced vaccines so quickly. It seems that those who feel nervous about that believe that there were steps that were skipped or rushed. I think it would be really helpful and useful to make clear to people that all the steps were followed and all the data was collected for just as long, it’s just that there was massive funding and removal of red tape that allowed all of the steps to happen all at the same time, rather than having to do one thing and wait for approval or funding for the next thing and then do the next thing and then wait for the next one, etc. nothing was skipped. That’s why we are still waiting for the kid vaccines to be approved, because they have to do all the steps.

We're actually still waiting for the vaccine to be approved for all age groups and at this point it looks like the FDA is willing to skip 1.5 of observing those that have received the vaccine to get it approved. I know this doesn't built my trust in the process.

I understand how operation warp speed came to be. For me it doesn't change the fact that they are pushing through full approval before the observational period is over.

[Frances]

16 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would not consider charging unvaxed people more for insurance "shaming" but if we find that acceptable there are many other behaviors we have to decide if it is acceptable to charge more for insurance like:  not using sunscreen, eating more than X calories a day, not getting enough Vitamin C, consuming too much sugar, playing contact sports, not get enough sleep, not getting X hours of exercise per week, having unprotected sex, not getting a flu shot, not getting a pneumonia shot.... I don't know that "shaming" is the word I would use but it definitely delineates what, according to my value system are acceptable choices for others to make that impact their health. 

My insurance already does this. Smokers are charged more. People who complete health activities (eg flu shot, dental cleaning, physical, exercising, etc etc) get a rebate on premiums. My husband’s is similar although mainly just the stick approach, charged more for smoking and charged more unless do certain health things. While some of your ideas are certainly important for good health they would likely be very hard to measure compared to getting or not getting a shot, physical, dental cleaning, etc.

[Dmmetler]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Yes, I would agree that is a way for a university to handle medical exemptions for COVID vaccines if they have enough single rooms relative to the need. 

It really depends on how the exemption policy is written. The way the TN one for K-12 public schools is written, it is easy to get an exemption just by signing a form stating that you object to vaccination due to sincerely held personal beliefs. Before they started running vaccination clinics at kindergarten registration, some schools would have 20% or more of parents signing such a form so they could register their not completely vaccinated kid for school. Once the vaccines became easy to get, that dropped to less than 5%, and most exemptions were medical, not personal, and were for one or more vaccines, not all of them, or all of the ones required for K but not given to infants. 

 

If you limit it to medical excemptions from MD's for stated diagnostic reasons, the % eligible for a medical excemption is pretty small, and likely overlaps a fair number of the kids who would benefit from a medical single for other reasons. 

 

From what I have seen, this year the schools that actually have vaccination mandates are closer to the latter than the former, probably because they are either private, or in states that don't have terribly liberal vaccination exemptions overall. The number of people CLAIMING to not be able to be vaccinated is far closer to the former. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

20 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would not consider charging unvaxed people more for insurance "shaming" but if we find that acceptable there are many other behaviors we have to decide if it is acceptable to charge more for insurance like:  not using sunscreen, eating more than X calories a day, not getting enough Vitamin C, consuming too much sugar, playing contact sports, not get enough sleep, not getting X hours of exercise per week, having unprotected sex, not getting a flu shot, not getting a pneumonia shot.... I don't know that "shaming" is the word I would use but it definitely delineates what, according to my value system are acceptable choices for others to make that impact their health. 

None of those things are contagious viruses that are part if a global pandemic. Flu is the closest as a contagious endemic virus and those most susceptible to life threatening illness are strongly advised by my insurance company to get vaccinated. 

[KSera]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think there is a major difference here--where students are saying that they are willing and accepting to room under particular circumstances.  Those students are freely providing information about their preferences; the university is not mandating that information be provided (like vaccine or not) and then sharing that information.  It is also a situation of students saying that they are willing to do something.  That is different than a student saying they are refusing to room with someone based upon that individuals medical information.  

I still don’t see it as needing to be any different. Some schools handle transgender room assignments just by having a check box where students indicate that they would or would not be open to sharing with a transgender student. They could do the same thing with vaccines. Ask people if they would or would not be open to sharing with someone who wasn’t vaccinated, and assign accordingly. If someone checks the box that they are open to that, they still don’t know whether the roomate assigned with them  is  vaccinated or not. No need to disclose anything. I just don’t think these are such insurmountable problems that we should throw up our hands and say that people should have no choice in the matter.

20 minutes ago, rebot said:

We're actually still waiting for the vaccine to be approved for all age groups and at this point it looks like the FDA is willing to skip 1.5 of observing those that have received the vaccine to get it approved. I know this doesn't built my trust in the process.

I understand how operation warp speed came to be. For me it doesn't change the fact that they are pushing through full approval before the observational period is over.

I know I shared a couple days ago a link that explains that this is not the case. I don’t have time now, but will look it up later if you didn’t see it. It explains that the observational period is standard even after full approval. Nothing is being skipped. It may be that some people are spreading the idea that this is an issue while neglecting to make clear that this is standard procedure in order to make it sound nefarious. 
 

eta: actually, it turned out to be much faster than I expected to pull up that link, as well as several others saying the same thing. Reuters is an excellent source:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitoring-idUSKBN2AC2G3

Edited August 5, 2021 by KSera

[TexasProud]

19 minutes ago, rebot said:

We're actually still waiting for the vaccine to be approved for all age groups and at this point it looks like the FDA is willing to skip 1.5 of observing those that have received the vaccine to get it approved. I know this doesn't built my trust in the process.

I understand how operation warp speed came to be. For me it doesn't change the fact that they are pushing through full approval before the observational period is over.

And I do understand this. Under normal circumstances, I would have waited to get the vaccine as well. We did not give the chicken pox vaccine for our boys because we felt it was too new. We gave it to our daughter when she was 5 because we felt like enough time had passes.  So, I do get that and IF those people that are choosing not to get vaccines would mask, social distance, stay home when sick, then I do not have a problem with it, honestly. I had one couple that was like this. Absolutely fine. They have since chosen to get the vaccine.

However, to choose not to get the vaccine and then to not take any precautions as well is irresponsible. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

2 hours ago, Plum said:

Well I don't know anything about this GOP leader or what he's done before covid. Did he do nothing good in his lifetime? Does he have a family he left behind? I assume he was more than this one thing, so yeah I'd say it was sick shaming.

This isn't reserved for politicians. There have been countless news reports of regular people who had the same opinions on vaccine and masks and they have been held up as examples to encourage vaccinations, while at the same time shaming them. 

The guy that said "I should have gotten the damn vaccine" actually planned to get it after it's been out for a year. He was also local to me. He wasn't anti-vax. But it's a great story that might convince 1 person to get vaccinated so it's all worth it. 

That story was spread by his own family. It’s not like there was a reporter lurking in the corner of the Covid ward. They want other families to avoid the pain and grief that they are going through. 

[ktgrok]

5 hours ago, rebot said:

Because J&J also isn't what is considered a traditional vaccine. Traditional vaccines tend to be inactivated, live-attenuated, toxoid, etc...

Numerous adenovirus based vaccines are currently in clinical trials but I don't know of any that have full FDA approval (please let me know which ones are).

Recombinant vaccines using a viral vector have been in use for years and years - I haven't worked in a vet clinic in over a decade but we had them then. Viral vector vaccines are not new technology, at all. 

https://www.merckvetmanual.com/pharmacology/vaccines-and-immunotherapy/types-of-vaccines-for-animals

Edited August 5, 2021 by ktgrok

[Longtime Lurker]

4 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

This is the message on many college campuses here. U of MI, MSU, Wayne State U, Oakland U, and a few others. If you want to live in campus housing including campus owned apartments, condos, get., you have to be vaccinated and only documented medical exemption allowed. Otherwise live off campus, and they are putting the mask mandate back. Some schools have gone so far as to say students cannot attend class without being vaxed except in case of medical exemption. These campuses will probably be a lot safer than most public places.

U of M is now requiring all students and staff to vaccinate even if they work or learn remotely.

https://news.umich.edu/university-of-michigan-to-require-covid-19-vaccination-on-all-campuses/

[HS Mom in NC]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

Well I think it would say something about me if I kept an archive of links of things people shouldn't have said.  Do people do that?

I'm not the only person who has seen the sick-shaming and ill-wishes happen.  If I were the only person, I could see wondering if it was my imagination.

I assume people expect you to use the websites search feature or Goggle's search feature for topics where those types of comments came up, then scroll through them to find the types of quotes you mean, and then cut and paste them on this thread as examples. Like it or not, you can't just expect people to take your word for it based on your memory of previous threads.

[HS Mom in NC]

Until "shaming" is defined, this conversation is pointless. My first instinct is to roll my eyes at the use of the term at all because I associate it with emotionally immature/insecure tweens and teens who throw out the accusation "I'm being ___________shamed" every time they hear a point of view that contradicts their own.

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

None of those things are contagious viruses that are part if a global pandemic. Flu is the closest as a contagious endemic virus and those most susceptible to life threatening illness are strongly advised by my insurance company to get vaccinated. 

People are talking about beds, docs/nurses, plus $$$ for treatment and having those things not available for other people. Those unhealthy behaviors aren't contagious, but they could still very well take up medical resources that would otherwise be needed for a person who didn't do those things. In the country I'm in, let's say someone comes in because they are overdosing near death, and someone who never took a drug in their life comes in with a broken arm, or a kid comes in with the flu but sats aren't bad enough yet to put them as near death as the OD. The OD gets the bed and the personnel that would have otherwise been available to help the broken arm or the flu patient. Maybe the flu patient gets worse while waiting, who knows? Or the heart attack in the otherwise healthy 40yo man gets diverted to another hospital because the OD is there and puts them over their capacity. The doc/bed/resources go to the person with the most emergent need. So if we go by who behaved rightly or wrongly it would be a big shift in how we use hospitals and emergency medicine in particular. Contagiousness isn't really the issue, it's allocation of resources for people who need it and when based on unhealthy choices or healthy choices or behaviors. Covid carelessness is just one bad thing to do that can end you up in the hospital. Do we prioritize people who made better life choices? Even in the case of unvaxxed covid patients, this would disparately impact Black and Brown people, but for the other things too. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

2 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

People are talking about beds, docs/nurses, plus $$$ for treatment and having those things not available for other people. Those unhealthy behaviors aren't contagious, but they could still very well take up medical resources that would otherwise be needed for a person who didn't do those things. In the country I'm in, let's say someone comes in because they are overdosing near death, and someone who never took a drug in their life comes in with a broken arm, or a kid comes in with the flu but sats aren't bad enough yet to put them as near death as the OD. The OD gets the bed and the personnel that would have otherwise been available to help the broken arm or the flu patient. Maybe the flu patient gets worse while waiting, who knows? Or the heart attack in the otherwise healthy 40yo man gets diverted to another hospital because the OD is there and puts them over their capacity. The doc/bed/resources go to the person with the most emergent need. So if we go by who behaved rightly or wrongly it would be a big shift in how we use hospitals and emergency medicine in particular. Contagiousness isn't really the issue, it's allocation of resources for people who need it and when based on unhealthy choices or healthy choices or behaviors. Covid carelessness is just one bad thing to do that can end you up in the hospital. Do we prioritize people who made better life choices? Even in the case of unvaxxed covid patients, this would disparately impact Black and Brown people, but for the other things too. 

No, we were talking about insurance possibly charging more for unvaxed people, not hospital triage. 

[SKL]

40 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

I assume people expect you to use the websites search feature or Goggle's search feature for topics where those types of comments came up, then scroll through them to find the types of quotes you mean, and then cut and paste them on this thread as examples. Like it or not, you can't just expect people to take your word for it based on your memory of previous threads.

1) I really don't care if people on WTM want to think I'm a liar or a drama queen.

2) I actually did try the search function a couple of times today, and it did not work.

[BronzeTurtle]

 

1 minute ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

No, we were talking about insurance possibly charging more for unvaxed people, not hospital triage. 

I guess my thoughts are the same. People who make unhealthy choices  use more insurance dollars. Isn't that why they would get charged more for not getting the vax? I don't see why contagiousness would be the differentiating factor here. If someone else getting sick is the issue, then have them cover the other person's bills. Not getting vaxxed for a contagious, dangerous disease is one choice of many that would use more money. I was responding to the idea that covid carelessness would be the differentiator in charging someone more and that flows into a use of resources and how we allocate them. If we charge more for someone unvaxxed it would be on the principle that they use more $$$$ because of their choices and maybe cause others too as well. Maybe they should pay more for being unvaxxed, especially if their risk is up because of other factors but I do think it would have a big impact on poc and people who are already poor.
 

[rebot]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Recombinant vaccines using a viral vector have been in use for years and years - I haven't worked in a vet clinic in over a decade but we had them then. Viral vector vaccines are not new technology, at all. 

I guess I should have specified.... please let me know of any used in humans

[KSera]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

This is what I think also.  I think we need a periodic reminder of what was concluded after the long investigation of "Russia collusion."  The conclusion was that Russia and other countries' intent was to sow discord, and boy have they done it.  The sad thing is how Americans haven't learned.  I think that's because the people with the best ability to inform Americans don't bother to take that opportunity when it comes to this.  And then I wonder why that is?  Why would Americans not want to warn Americans against outside influence aimed at causing America to crumble?

I agree that Russia has been incredibly successful at this. I've actually seen it talked about a lot, so I'm not certain I agree that no one is bothering to warn other Americans this is happening. To me, it's been more than I don't understand why so many people don't seem to care. I just saw a new story about this today: Russian Disinformation Targets Vaccines and the Biden Administration; A new campaign appears to be spreading falsehoods about the potential for forced inoculations against Covid-19. Maybe that's where these ideas about "the government is forcing injections" are coming from.