Jump to content

Menu

“Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number is Losing Meaning”


pinball
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

No one is being thrown under a bus though. It would be throwing them under the bus if they were prevented from getting the vaccine. What is throwing under the bus by requiring something that may save their life.

Honest question -- how effective do you (general "you") think PPE is at preventing the spread of COVID? 

My main concern is the removal of the natural immunity card. It looks to me like more studies are coming out saying that natural immunity (from previous infection) is as good/better than the vaccine. I understand the difficulty of proving antibody levels -- much easier to just give everyone the jab -- but I don't feel natural immunity should be discounted, especially since there are breakthrough cases from the vaccine so it doesn't totally protect those around them (and yes, I do believe the vaccines confer milder cases to those who have had them).

Another unpopular opinion here, but I will have to admit that I am concerned about autoimmune diseases and prion diseases as a result of these vaccines, maybe 3 years or more down the road. Please don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I have always been a late adopter of new technologies (let them get all the kinks out first, lol). I desparately hope I am wrong because many people dear to me have had the vaccine.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, pinball said:

 

It is amusing the lengths you (general you) will go to to derail a thread and attempt to silence the Wrong Think

Other than the one line about it being immoral to coerce a medical procedure, you haven’t shared substance, though, so it has nothing to do with silencing any kind of opinion. Lots of people disagree about lots of things on here, but are still able to engage in discussions about those things. I don’t get the idea that you are actually looking for discussion. There’s any number of posts above that you could choose to reply to with actual discussion.

How about this one, for example:

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Willfully spreading lies and misinformation can be just as deadly as spreading the virus. I wonder what goes through the minds of unvaccinated people when the doctor tells them they need to be intubated and there's a 10% chance they'll ever wake up, as they realize they've been conned by a bunch of grifters who exploited their ignorance for political and financial gain.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Other than the one line about it being immoral to coerce a medical procedure, you haven’t shared substance, though, so it has nothing to do with silencing any kind of opinion. Lots of people disagree about lots of things on here, but are still able to engage in discussions about those things. I don’t get the idea that you are actually looking for discussion. There’s any number of posts above that you could choose to reply to with actual discussion.

How about this one, for example:

 

I’m not spreading lies or misinformation about anything if I believe that it is immoral to coerce a medical procedure, nor am I supporting anyone doing that,  so why would I respond to that post?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pinball said:

I’m not spreading lies or misinformation about anything if I believe that it is immoral to coerce a medical procedure, nor am I supporting anyone doing that,  so why would I respond to that post?

A vaccine is not a medical procedure, so you don't even frame the question honesty. Where to go from there?

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

Honest question -- how effective do you (general "you") think PPE is at preventing the spread of COVID? 

My main concern is the removal of the natural immunity card. It looks to me like more studies are coming out saying that natural immunity (from previous infection) is as good/better than the vaccine. I understand the difficulty of proving antibody levels -- much easier to just give everyone the jab -- but I don't feel natural immunity should be discounted, especially since there are breakthrough cases from the vaccine so it doesn't totally protect those around them (and yes, I do believe the vaccines confer milder cases to those who have had them).

I think proper PPE appears to be quite protective, now that we understand more about how the virus is spread. Not everyone is using proper PPE, and not everyone is using it properly, but it does appear that it’s very effective when used.

I agree with you that there needs to be provisions for prior infection to come in to play. I think part of the problem is that we still don’t have good understanding how long that lasts and how strong it is. We do know that prior infection plus one shot provides excellent protection. I would like to see that combo at least accepted for now.

7 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

Another unpopular opinion here, but I will have to admit that I am concerned about autoimmune diseases and prion diseases as a result of these vaccines, maybe 3 years or more down the road. Please don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I have always been a late adopter of new technologies (let them get all the kinks out first, lol). I desparately hope I am wrong because many people dear to me have had the vaccine.

I used to worry about auto immune diseases as far as getting so many vaccines for kids in such a short time, and I spread out vaccines for them for that reason. At this point I think it probably wasn’t necessary, knowing what I know now. In the case of the Covid vaccine, definitely wasn’t a concern for me, because the risks of the disease are so astronomically higher than the possible, potential, what if chance of what if there was some kind of auto immune thing that we’ve never seen before down the road. It makes so much more sense to me to deal with the actual risks than with some hypothesized risk.

And @pinball, FWIW, here’s an example of how people on this forum with different beliefs are usually able to engage despite different beliefs. It’s much more productive that way.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

No one has a constitutional right to work as a nurse, a lab tech, or whatever. No one. Plenty of other jobs out there that do not have a vaccine requirement. People with this mentality really need to get over themselves. Plus, I am not sure I would trust a nurse who is this brazen about violating health protocols during a pandemic. What next? Decides to inject me with whatever horse medicine he/she thinks is a magic cure? Starts spraying essential oils around my room? Decides to tell my family the whole thing can be cured with Vitamin C and vegetables (have a niece who thinks this and she wishes she had gone into healthcare so she could "set people straight"). Nope not to be trusted. 

Nonvaxxed does not equal violating health protocols, not masking, not taking precautions, willfully spreading covid, nor does it mean they will inject you with horse medicine, etc. Prior to vaccine mandates, a hospital administrator in my area said that before Covid, hospital staff didn't even have to get a flu shot. If they didn't, they had to mask up. 99% sure it was a rep from Yale New Haven, so not a podunk neighborhood hospital. I would rather have a nurse shrouded in PPE that was unvaxxed rather than face a severe staffing shortage, if it came to that. I'm assuming all hospital staff is still required to mask and take all other hospital precautions. Also, has anyone seen stats on people who got covid from a doctor or nurse? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pinball said:

I’m not spreading lies or misinformation about anything if I believe that it is immoral to coerce a medical procedure, nor am I supporting anyone doing that,  so why would I respond to that post?

The thread didn’t even start about that, that’s where it went, and that was just one example of an interesting post; you could choose another. It started with sharing an article from the Atlantic that I think was supposed to suggest that there aren’t really tons of people filling up hospitals, but when that was responded to with information showing why that is clearly not the case, you didn’t engage with any of that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, KSera said:

No one is being thrown under a bus though. It would be throwing them under the bus if they were prevented from getting the vaccine. What is throwing under the bus by requiring something that may save their life. This whole conversation, I keep thinking about this nurse I read about yesterday: 'I think it was from misinformation:' Nurse who died from COVID wouldn't get vaccine .She leaves twin ten year old girls orphaned. Had she gotten vaccinated because of her job, that hardly would have been throwing her under the bus; would have changed the trajectory of their entire lives. 

That would be totally and 100% her choice, though of course tragic if it happens. And that is not what everyone has been saying, nor why they are mandating. They are mandating to protect others. Also, though it is possible, not being vaccinated does NOT = dying from Covid

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

Weird. OP is still posting in the thread.

It is weird though that people are trying to debunk an argument that I didn't see made in this thread. I didn't see anyone claim there was a constitutional right to be a nurse. Or that anyone in this thread it was immoral to tell someone a job requires a medical procedure -- only that it was immoral to coerce someone into a medical procedure. 

The fact that thousands of people are being faced with accepting a medical procedure that was not previously required as a condition for employment is, IMO, not immoral but it does suck for those who do not wish to get that procedure but who want to keep their current job. Lots about this pandemic sucks, including the hundreds of thousands of deaths. Job loss sucks, too.

I agree that it sucks. Pandemics are bad in general in all kinds of ways. 

I don't anyone to lose their jobs but jobs have requirements. It's just the way it is. 

It's not like this is some unprecedented requirement. Many healthcare providers require other vaccinations as a condition of employment. It's true that someone who took a job in the past didn't know that they would be forced to get a vaccine that didn't exist. But job conditions and requirements are constantly changing, especially in healthcare. 

Here is a link to the immunization requirements for employees of the largest hospital system in our state. 

How to Meet Banner Health Immunization Requirements

Is it immoral for this hospital system to "coerce" (which isn't the word in this case, IMHO) their employees to get the MMR. Under those guidelines, a new employee has to show a negative titer result or get the MMR. If they refuse to get the MMR, they will be terminated. Is that "immoral?" 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

I agree with you that there needs to be provisions for prior infection to come in to play. I think part of the problem is that we still don’t have good understanding how long that lasts and how strong it is.

We don't have an understanding about that with the vaccine either.  I agree that we should not be mandating vaccination for anyone that had prior infection. That was one of the considerations in Friday's FDA meeting, not knowing what damage a third dose could do to someone who also previously had Covid. 

Edited by whitestavern
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

And that is not what everyone has been saying, nor why they are mandating. They are mandating to protect others.

Right, well to protect others and to protect their staffing levels because when one person on the nursing staff gets sick with Covid, it affects a lot of others. But the reason I brought up that case wasn’t as an example of why there is the mandate, but of why it doesn’t make sense to call a vaccine mandate for Covid throwing anyone under the bus. They’re not requiring something dangerous, rather something that may save their life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

The thread didn’t even start about that, that’s where it went, and that was just one example of an interesting post; you could choose another. It started with sharing an article from the Atlantic that I think was supposed to suggest that there aren’t really tons of people filling up hospitals, but when that was responded to with information showing why that is clearly not the case, you didn’t engage with any of that.

No, the article was about how the authors thought that a formerly reliable way of measuring the scale of the pandemic was not as meaningful as it once had been.

and to MY READING of the replies, no one engaged in that.

”I think was supposed to suggest” is the problem here. Either you didn’t read the article or you are engaging in erroneous mind reading.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2021 at 12:28 PM, Spy Car said:

Hospital ICU beds are so jammed up in many parts of the country with unvaccinated people on vents that normal healthcare isn't taking place for people with serious issues. People are dying as a result of other people's horrendous decisions.

We had an elderly man in our remote circle die last week (not from Covid) because he was sent home due to lack of hospital space.

Hospitals are not taking in people "just because."

And, unfortunately, we have a new metric: How many refrigerated trucks are in hospital parking lots serving as temporary morgues due to Covid?

Bill

 

Yes, exactly.  Two weeks ago a man in a city about an hour south of us who had cardiac failure, I believe- died because the hospital there could not find any hospitals able to take him out of sixteen they tried in three states including my own.  

Then last Thursday or Friday, we had a report on the news where a doctor was saying he had a patient with large kidney stone who was waiting for a bed in the er, surgery or anywhere. He was lying in the hallway and because he was lying in the hallway and they didn't have enough staff to supervise those in the hallway, he couldn't even be given pain medication and kidney stones, especially large ones, hurt on a level 10 pain level.  I started crying when I was listening to that news.  As a person whose pain very rarely goes below 4 and most of the time is at 6 even with lots of pain measures like lidocaine patches, lidocaine cream, Voltaren cream on joints I am allowed to put it on, and muscle relaxant and amytriptylline and Gralise, slow release gabapentin, and finally Norco 10---and I was at a level 10 for a brief time this week when I got out of bed and screamed (which I never did before but the pain was so excruciating)---- I can't even imagine that horror.  

And all those people who didn't vaccinate and make others die, suffer severe medical consequences or suffer severe pain, I have a really hard time acting like a Christian about them.  They make me so very angry.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pinball said:

No, the article was about how the authors thought that a formerly reliable way of measuring the scale of the pandemic was not as meaningful as it once had been.

and to MY READING of the replies, no one engaged in that.

”I think was supposed to suggest” is the problem here. Either you didn’t read the article or you are engaging in erroneous mind reading.

 

This is why it would be helpful if instead of only posting a link and not engaging with the substance of the link, it would be helpful to know your thoughts on the link or why you are sharing it. The replies were based on the fact that an analysis of VA hospitals which concluded many people in the hospital for Covid are only there for observation or not seriously ill didn’t seem meaningfully applicable to hospitals for the general population, because that is not what is generally being seen there right now. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KSera said:

In the case of the Covid vaccine, definitely wasn’t a concern for me, because the risks of the disease are so astronomically higher than the possible, potential, what if chance of what if there was some kind of auto immune thing that we’ve never seen before down the road. It makes so much more sense to me to deal with the actual risks than with some hypothesized risk.

I think my risk assessment is different than yours on this matter. To me, taking the vaccine is 100% chance that something COULD go wrong, whereas there is still the possibility that I might not ever get COVID or have a bad case of it (although I am feeling more fatalistic that I will eventually get COVID and wish I had already had a round of it to protect me a little bit). I do recognize the risk is there for long-COVID and/or death, but I don't think it is as great as the media has played it up to be. 

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pinball said:

Not being vaccinated is not willing fully spreading a deadly illness.

you’ve skipped quite a few factors that would equal a willful spread, firstly being having the illness.

Agreed, everyone should step back and breathe.  When I got the vaccine in March, one of the questions was had I had the virus and had it been at least 3 months since I had it.  I know one senator was checking his antibodies because he had had the disease before vaccines were available.  Last spring, he had enough antibodies.  He got his vaccines in the summer when his antibodies were waning.  That is a reasonable alternative- if you had COVID recently or still have good antibodies to COVID, no you do not need to get the vaccine now.  But everyone else who did not have COVID recently or who can't show they have adequate antibodies should be getting the vaccine.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

This is why it would be helpful if instead of only posting a link and not engaging with the substance of the link, it would be helpful to know your thoughts on the link or why you are sharing it. The replies were based on the fact that an analysis of VA hospitals which concluded many people in the hospital for Covid are only there for observation or not seriously ill didn’t seem meaningfully applicable to hospitals for the general population, because that is not what is generally being seen there right now. 

Also the article was behind a paywall. The Atlantic allows you to read several (2 or 3?) articles a month without a subscription. I don't have an Atlantic subscription now so I'm careful about which Atlantic links I will click. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Agreed, everyone should step back and breathe.  When I got the vaccine in March, one of the questions was had I had the virus and had it been at least 3 months since I had it.  I know one senator was checking his antibodies because he had had the disease before vaccines were available.  Last spring, he had enough antibodies.  He got his vaccines in the summer when his antibodies were waning.  That is a reasonable alternative- if you had COVID recently or still have good antibodies to COVID, no you do not need to get the vaccine now.  But everyone else who did not have COVID recently or who can't show they have adequate antibodies should be getting the vaccine.

That is a reasonable alternative, yes, but is not an option for those who currently have strong antibodies and are still being forced to get an unnecessary-to-them vaccine or lose their jobs. 😞

Some of the comments from the FDA hearing that decided against boosters is pretty shocking, actually. There's an 8-hour livestream, and I have listened to some of the clips of it / quotes from transcript, though not the whole thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

Honest question -- how effective do you (general "you") think PPE is at preventing the spread of COVID? 

My main concern is the removal of the natural immunity card. It looks to me like more studies are coming out saying that natural immunity (from previous infection) is as good/better than the vaccine. I understand the difficulty of proving antibody levels -- much easier to just give everyone the jab -- but I don't feel natural immunity should be discounted, especially since there are breakthrough cases from the vaccine so it doesn't totally protect those around them (and yes, I do believe the vaccines confer milder cases to those who have had them).

Another unpopular opinion here, but I will have to admit that I am concerned about autoimmune diseases and prion diseases as a result of these vaccines, maybe 3 years or more down the road. Please don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I have always been a late adopter of new technologies (let them get all the kinks out first, lol). I desparately hope I am wrong because many people dear to me have had the vaccine.

 

I think the risk of autoimmune disease is a lot worse with actual COVID.  Long haulers seem to be mainly having symptoms that are a lot like many of mine from autoimmune diseases.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

I think my risk assessment is different than yours on this matter. To me, taking the vaccine is 100% chance that something COULD go wrong, whereas there is still the possibility that I might not ever get COVID or have a bad case of it (although I am feeling more fatalistic that I will eventually get COVID and wish I had already had a round of it to protect me a little bit). I do recognize the risk is there for long-COVID and/or death, but I don't think it is as great as the media has played it up to be. 

My risk assessment in based purely on the numbers and data we have.  I understand what you’re saying about the vaccine feeling like you’re making a 100% choice that’s some thing could go wrong. But it truly is just as true the other way around that not taking the vaccine is making a 100% choice that you could get a bad case of Covid.  And by the numbers, the chances are much, much higher something will go wrong if you catch Covid than that something will go wrong getting the vaccine.  And it’s also the case that right now it appears that the choice for almost everybody is either catch Covid while vaccinated or catch Covid while unvaccinated. Very few people are able to live lives so secluded that they will never encounter the disease.  We are able to stay largely out of public, but we have had some necessary hospital visits that were risky.

And as far as thinking the media is playing up the numbers in someway, my concerns aren’t based on numbers from “the media”,  they are based on numbers from studies and hospital data.  I’m pretty much certain you don’t want anyone to worry about you with that choice, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t make me worry about you. I’ve just seen far, far too many people that thought that way and regretted and paid dearly for it 😢

12 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Also the article was behind a paywall. The Atlantic allows you to read several (2 or 3?) articles a month without a subscription. I don't have an Atlantic subscription now so I'm careful about which Atlantic links I will click. 

I have the same problem. I have three paid subscriptions right now and can’t add another, though I’ve been considering dropping one to add the Atlantic, because I always end up reaching my limit there. When I really want to read a particular thing, sometimes I’ll go to a different browser, but I really don’t like doing that as it seems to defeat the spirit of the thing, and I do value a good journalism.

Edited by KSera
Typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

That is a reasonable alternative, yes, but is not an option for those who currently have strong antibodies and are still being forced to get an unnecessary-to-them vaccine or lose their jobs. 😞

Some of the comments from the FDA hearing that decided against boosters is pretty shocking, actually. There's an 8-hour livestream, and I have listened to some of the clips of it / quotes from transcript, though not the whole thing. 

That is why I hate these one size fits all mandates.  I was ranting to my own doctor about the CDC only approves high dose flu vaccines on those over 65.  My rheumatologist and my primary care both agree I should get a high dose flu vaccine because while I am 58, I am at super high risk if I get flu.  And there are many others who should be getting a high dose flu vaccine even though they aren't 65 yet.  Or the shingles vaccine which people who already have had shingles at least once and are younger, should be able to get that one too- I know of a number of lupus patients who have gotten repeat course of shingles in their 20s and 30s but they cannot get a vaccine because CDC says only older people need it.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

My risk assessment in based purely on the numbers and data we have.  I understand what you’re saying about the vaccine feeling like you’re making a 100% choice that’s some thing could go wrong. But it truly is just as true the other way around that not taking the vaccine is making a 100% choice that you could get a bad case of Covid.  And by the numbers, the chances are much, much higher something will go wrong if you catch Covid than that something will go wrong getting the vaccine.  And it’s also the case that right now it appears that the choice for almost everybody is either catch Covid while vaccinated or catch Covid while unvaccinated. Very few people are able to live lives so secluded that they will never encounter the disease.  We are able to stay largely out of public, but we have had some necessary hospital visits that were risky.

And as far as thinking the media is playing up the numbers in someway, my concerns aren’t based on numbers from “the media”,  they are based on numbers from studies and hospital data.  I’m pretty much certain you don’t want anyone to worry about you with that choice, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t make me worry about you. I’ve just seen far, far too many people that thought that way and regretted and paid dearly for it 😢

I have the same problem. I have three paid subscriptions right now and can’t add another, though I’ve been considering dropping one to add the Atlantic, because I always end up reaching my limit there. When I really want to read a particular thing, sometimes I’ll go to a different browser, but I really don’t like doing that as it seems to defeat the spirit of the thing, and I do value a good journalism.

Except the Atlantic article is free under their Covid coverage,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

In the case of health care workers, it's a job safety issue - safety for themselves and safety for their patients.  The moral issue comes when they try to dodge the safety issue. 

I agree with that.  But it's become a moral issue for just regular, everyday folks.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

I really wish we didn't make vaxxed vs non-vaxxed a 'moral' issue.     

I think it does fit neatly into morality. Multiple religious leaders have said that moral stance is to either get the vaccine or stay home. 

Quote

Those who refuse to be vaccinated against Covid-19 are committing a sin they will have to repent for the rest of their lives. That’s according to the Russian Orthodox Church, whose spokesman said rejecting a jab is selfish.

Refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 is a ’sin’ & anti-vaxxers must spend their life repenting, says Russian Orthodox Church

Quote

Pope Francis went on to say that getting a Covid jab that is “authorized by the respective authorities” is an “act of love.”

Pope Francis urges people to get vaccinated against Covid-19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

In the case of health care workers, it's a job safety issue - safety for themselves and safety for their patients.  The moral issue comes when they try to dodge the safety issue. 

The moral issue comes in when people in power coerce others. Always. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think it does fit neatly into morality. Multiple religious leaders have said that moral stance is to either get the vaccine or stay home. 

Refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 is a ’sin’ & anti-vaxxers must spend their life repenting, says Russian Orthodox Church

Pope Francis urges people to get vaccinated against Covid-19

Multiple religious leaders are also pedophi*es so that doesn't exactly mean anything to me.  goodness, that is definitely not an argument for making it a moral issue.   
 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

In the case of health care workers, it's a job safety issue - safety for themselves and safety for their patients.

Okay, but what about the federal workers who are not taking care of patients? My DS, a federal worker, who could telecommute if allowed, is being mandated to get the vaccination while, of course, Congress managed to excuse themselves from this mandate just like they excused themselves from Obamacare! And it is unlikely that my DS could easily find a place to work with under 100 employees, so he is being coerced to take the vaccine.

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

Okay, but what about the federal workers who are not taking care of patients? My DS, a federal worker, who could telecommute if allowed, is being mandated to get the vaccination while, of course, Congress managed to excuse themselves from this mandate just like they excused themselves from Obamacare! And it is unlikely that my DS could easily find a place to work with under 100 employees, so he is being coerced to take the vaccine.

Has he asked if he could telecommute? 

Edited by whitestavern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

Okay, but what about the federal workers who are not taking care of patients? My DS, a federal worker, who could telecommute if allowed, is being mandated to get the vaccination while, of course, Congress managed to excuse themselves from this mandate just like they excused themselves from Obamacare! And it is unlikely that my DS could easily find a place to work with under 100 employees, so he is being coerced to take the vaccine.

 

I am so sorry Martha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KSera said:

The thread didn’t even start about that, that’s where it went, and that was just one example of an interesting post; you could choose another. It started with sharing an article from the Atlantic that I think was supposed to suggest that there aren’t really tons of people filling up hospitals, but when that was responded to with information showing why that is clearly not the case, you didn’t engage with any of that.

People ask me, ‘Why am I getting vaccinated if I just end up in the hospital anyway?’” Griffin said. “But I say, ‘You’ll end up leaving the hospital.’” He explained that some COVID patients are in for “soft” hospitalizations, where they need only minimal treatment and leave relatively quickly; others may be on the antiviral drug remdesivir for five days, or with a tube down their throat. One of the values of this study, he said, is that it helps the public understand this distinction—and the fact that not all COVID hospitalizations are the same.

————————————-

you comment that I bolded couple with the one I just bolded from the article makes me wonder if you even read the article?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martha in GA said:

Okay, but what about the federal workers who are not taking care of patients? My DS, a federal worker, who could telecommute if allowed, is being mandated to get the vaccination while, of course, Congress managed to excuse themselves from this mandate just like they excused themselves from Obamacare! And it is unlikely that my DS could easily find a place to work with under 100 employees, so he is being coerced to take the vaccine.

Technically he is being required to either get vaccinated or get weekly tested. That is why it is not "being mandated to get the vaccination" and is he not "being coerced to take the vaccine." He is being given two options to help keep a large number of people from catching a contagious virus during a pandemic. He has a choice on which way he helps.

edit: misinformation post! leaving it up for conversation continuity but please see below posts that say how I'm wrong!

Edited by Moonhawk
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Martha in GA said:

Okay, but what about the federal workers who are not taking care of patients? My DS, a federal worker, who could telecommute if allowed, is being mandated to get the vaccination while, of course, Congress managed to excuse themselves from this mandate just like they excused themselves from Obamacare! And it is unlikely that my DS could easily find a place to work with under 100 employees, so he is being coerced to take the vaccine.

I actually can understand why this feels upsetting for some people. What makes that upsetting to me is that I think very few people would feel distressed about this if not for the misinformation and politically motivated nonsense. And as a result, we would have literally tens of thousands of now dead Americans who would still be alive. And others would feel grateful for being protected rather than feeling like they were being violated in some way 😥

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pinball said:

you comment that I bolded couple with the one I just bolded from the article makes me wonder if you even read the article?

I did. I read it a week ago when it was first published, so did not click on it again in this thread since I knew what it was about. I just went back and reviewed it since you’re calling me out about it, but still don’t see after doing so what are your point is, since you keep posting a short excerpt without making any comment of your own. I understand the point of the article, but what is the point you wish for everyone to draw from it?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martha in GA said:

I will have to admit that I am concerned about autoimmune diseases and prion diseases as a result of these vaccines, maybe 3 years or more down the road. Please don't call me a conspiracy theorist. I have always been a late adopter of new technologies (let them get all the kinks out first, lol). I desparately hope I am wrong because many people dear to me have had the vaccine.

There is no evidence at all for the prion disease claim. The paper that made this claim, which was widely cited in RW media, was written by J. Bart Classen, a well-known antivaxxer who also believes that covid is a "bio-weapons attack released in part by individuals in the United States government." It was not published in a reputable journal (the publisher, SciVision, charges authors to publish their work and there is no actual peer review), and it has been debunked by multiple scientists and organizations. Please do not let false information like this influence your decision about the vaccine. Even if you still choose not to get it, I hope that knowing this is totally false at least allays your fears that this is something that could happen in the future to your loved ones who have chosen to get vaccinated.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

I did. I read it a week ago when it was first published, so did not click on it again in this thread since I knew what it was about. I just went back and reviewed it since you’re calling me out about it, but still don’t see after doing so what are your point is, since you keep posting a short excerpt without making any comment of your own. I understand the point of the article, but what is the point you wish for everyone to draw from it?

Stop changing the goalposts.

this is what you said: sharing an article from the Atlantic that think was supposed to suggest that there aren’t really tons of people filling up hospitals, 

So either you are deliberately mischaracterizing the article or you didn’t read it.

since you are claiming now that you read it….well, why did you deliberately mischaracterize it?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Technically he is being required to either get vaccinated or get weekly tested. That is why it is not "being mandated to get the vaccination" and is he not "being coerced to take the vaccine." He is being given two options to help keep a large number of people from catching a contagious virus during a pandemic. He has a choice on which way he helps.

Please cite the source that Federal workers, like Martha said her son is, can substitute testing instead of vaccination. Because what I have read says the testing option is no longer available.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/biden-to-mandate-covid-vaccine-for-federal-workers-removes-option-to-get-tested-instead.html

  • The executive order will include federal workers and contractors, impacting a total of 2.1 million employees.
  • Earlier this year, Biden ordered all federal employees to prove their coronavirus vaccination status or submit to a series of rigorous safety protocols.
  • Thursday’s order will remove the option for rigorous testing, as the United States struggles to contain the highly contagious delta variant.

https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/vaccinations/

NEWQ: By what date do Federal employees need to be fully vaccinated?

A: Federal employees need to be fully vaccinated by November 22, 2021.

Employees will be considered fully vaccinated for COVID-19 2 weeks after they have received the requisite number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine approved or authorized for emergency use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or that has been listed for emergency use by the World Health Organization. For Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca/Oxford, that is 2 weeks after an employee has received the second dose in a 2-dose series. For Johnson and Johnson (J&J)/Janssen, that is 2 weeks after an employee has received a single-dose.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under what possible rationale should American taxpayers employ people who refuse to take basic measures, like being vaccinated, to help ensure the health and safety of fellow citizens during a deadly pandemic, instead of becoming one more threat to our people?

Bill

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Technically he is being required to either get vaccinated or get weekly tested. That is why it is not "being mandated to get the vaccination" and is he not "being coerced to take the vaccine."

Really? I thought that provision was removed for the federal workers?

ETA: I see this was mentioned upthread...

 

Edited by Martha in GA
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pinball said:

Stop changing the goalposts.

this is what you said: sharing an article from the Atlantic that think was supposed to suggest that there aren’t really tons of people filling up hospitals, 

So either you are deliberately mischaracterizing the article or you didn’t read it.

since you are claiming now that you read it….well, why did you deliberately mischaracterize it?

I’ll respond to this, and then I will let you have the last word with me unless you decide you would actually like to engage in meaningful discussion. I have yet to see evidence that you do.

The part you bolded wasn’t me saying that that was the point of the article itself, it was me saying that I gathered that that was the point you were trying to make by posting it. Because again, you posted no comments about it, so we are left guessing what it is you are trying to say. Based on your past posts and the way I have seen other people use the same article, it seemed a reasonable leap to think that that was why you were sharing it as well. If you had another point, you could expand on it with comments of your own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pinball said:

Please cite the source that Federal workers, like Martha said her son is, can substitute testing instead of vaccination.

apologies to @Martha in GA for my misinformation. It appears federal employees may only ask for reasonable accommodation:

"Federal employees must be fully vaccinated other than in limited circumstances where the law requires an exception," the task force said.

Vaccine mandates must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. An employee with a religious objection or disability may need to be accommodated." https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/faqs-on-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-workers.aspx

I saw her mention of the 100-employee mandate and my brain jumped. So while that particular part of her post was not accurate for proving coercion, it was accurate in her statement about federal employees needing vaccination. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pinball said:

Either you didn’t read the article or you are engaging in erroneous mind reading.

*whispers* I haven't read it yet.

I try to read the links before posting but didn't this time so I couldn't comment on the actual content.

I don't know if this relates, but I have definitely seen a change in the relation of cases/hospitalizayions/deaths on the charts from last summer to this summer. I assumed most of the affect was prior infections & vaccinations leading to less hospitalizations & less death.

26 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Technically he is being required to either get vaccinated or get weekly tested. That is why it is not "being mandated to get the vaccination" and is he not "being coerced to take the vaccine." He is being given two options to help keep a large number of people from catching a contagious virus during a pandemic. He has a choice on which way he helps.

Actually, the option to test instead of vaccinate is now gone for federal workers even if you telework.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2021/09/under-recent-executive-order-federal-employees-must-now-show-proof-of-vaccination/

"Federal employees must now show proof of COVID-19 vaccination, the Biden administration said Thursday, the latest change in the White House’s evolving policy for the workforce.

The vaccination requirement applies to all executive branch employees, including those who are currently teleworking, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force said Thursday in new guidance detailing how agencies should implement the president’s recent executive order.

Employees who are on maximum telework or working remotely are not excused from this requirement, including because employees working offsite may interact with the public as part of their duties and agencies may need to recall employees who are on maximum telework or working remotely,” the guidance reads."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pro-vaccine. I am also pro-science. To my knowledge, there is no accomodation for those who currently have high antibody levels due to a very recent infection or who would only need one dose of an mRNA vaccine to boost them to great (even greater than 2 doses) antibody levels because of a previous infection. To me, this is ignoring the science.

For those who don't know my stance, I am for allowing (adult) people to make their own decision with regard to vaccines -- including those required for a potential job -- and to allow them to accept the consequences of those decisions. Having a job suddenly require something new -- whether a new vaccine, a new skill certificate, or a new weight-lifting requirement-- should allow a grandfathering of current employees in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’ll respond to this, and then I will let you have the last word with me unless you decide you would actually like to engage in meaningful discussion. I have yet to see evidence that you do.

The part you bolded wasn’t me saying that that was the point of the article itself, it was me saying that I gathered that that was the point you were trying to make by posting it. Because again, you posted no comments about it, so we are left guessing what it is you are trying to say. Based on your past posts and the way I have seen other people use the same article, it seemed a reasonable leap to think that that was why you were sharing it as well. If you had another point, you could expand on it with comments of your own.

LOL

so instead of lying about the point of the article you literally lied and made up something I have never said!

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

I'm sorry.  Really.    You know, I have a love-hate relationship with you.   We actually agree on most everything, but you come across as a 'typical man' and it drives me nuts.     It's probably just how it comes across on the 'net, but still.  Pinball comes across as a know it-all and also an instigator (I wouldn't describe you as an instigator, just Pb).    

I somehow missed this until right now


 aren’t you the name caller, just like Spycar and his pals
 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

I am pro-vaccine. I am also pro-science. To my knowledge, there is no accomodation for those who currently have high antibody levels due to a very recent infection or who would only need one dose of an mRNA vaccine to boost them to great (even greater than 2 doses) antibody levels because of a previous infection. To me, this is ignoring the science.

For those who don't know my stance, I am for allowing (adult) people to make their own decision with regard to vaccines -- including those required for a potential job -- and to allow them to accept the consequences of those decisions. Having a job suddenly require something new -- whether a new vaccine, a new skill certificate, or a new weight-lifting requirement-- should allow a grandfathering of current employees in my opinion.

I agree with you fully on the first. And disagree completely on the second (I think in new circumstances like a pandemic, we have to be able to change requirements). To the first though, I think it would really help if they could do this. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pinball said:

I somehow missed this until right now


 aren’t you the name caller, just like Spycar and his pals
 

LOL

Of whom you are not one.

Trying to suggest that ICUs have not been overwhelmed with Covid patients during this surge is pure gaslighting and typical of the disinformation you've spread about Covid since the beginning of the pandemic.

Bill

 

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...