Vaccine mandates

[vector2]

The sad unnecessary truth.

Who would have thought some places would be worse off now than before the vaccine rollout?

I do some MICU ~quarterly as well and I am absolutely dreading going back there in November. A unit half full of sick, terminal octogenarians getting unnecessary life prolonging care...ehhhh, it is what it is, good old American medicine.

But when half my census are 40 and 50 year olds proned with full blown ARDS, and that whole situation was preventable with two shots....I just can't anymore.

And make no mistake, the following curve is just gonna get flatter and flatter and peter out at 60-65% full vaxxed, which is going to be an absolute catastrophe this winter.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mman]

And make no mistake, the following curve is just gonna get flatter and flatter and peter out at 60-65% full vaxxed, which is going to be an absolute catastrophe this winter.

I bet >95% of the population is either fully vaccinated or covid recovered (and naturally immune) by the winter.

 

[chessknt]

I bet >95% of the population is either fully vaccinated or covid recovered (and naturally immune) by the winter.

How do you think those covid lungs are going to fare against the flu in the unmasked traveling trumpists?

 

[Mman]

How do you think those covid lungs are going to fare against the flu in the unmasked traveling trumpists?

it is still a small minority of people that end up seriously ill from covid. My point isn't that "natural immunity" is a great thing to try to get, but it will be quite beneficial to slow the spread and severity of covid in 2022. Almost everybody will have antibodies to covid by 2022.

 

[vector2]

I bet >95% of the population is either fully vaccinated or covid recovered (and naturally immune) by the winter.

The corollary to 30-35% becoming immune by natural infection is that hospitals remain hellholes until winter, although likely not at the overwhelming clip that's happening now. Antibody seroprevalence is getting higher but a large number of these may be people with (already waning) immunity from wild-type and alpha infections.

And then next year we'll have to hope natural immunity really is the bees knees because you know these people won't be getting boosters.

 

[nimbus]

https://www.kentucky.com/news/coronavirus/article254283883.html

“Med Center Health in Bowling Green, one of the first hospitals to announce a vaccine mandate in late July, fired 180 employees who refused vaccination by September 1, hospital spokeswoman Corie Martin confirmed in a September 3rd email. “At the same time, we have welcomed 178 new, vaccinated team members who will be joining us within the next week.”

 

[MirrorTodd]

https://www.kentucky.com/news/coronavirus/article254283883.html

“Med Center Health in Bowling Green, one of the first hospitals to announce a vaccine mandate in late July, fired 180 employees who refused vaccination by September 1, hospital spokeswoman Corie Martin confirmed in a September 3rd email. “At the same time, we have welcomed 178 new, vaccinated team members who will be joining us within the next week.”

This is the way.

 

[IMGASMD]

“At least 125 part-time employees at Indiana University Health system, the largest physicians network in the state, have lost their jobs for not complying with Covid-19 vaccination requirements, a spokeswoman said Friday.”

We need more…… I need more….

 

[Mman]

The corollary to 30-35% becoming immune by natural infection is that hospitals remain hellholes until winter, although likely not at the overwhelming clip that's happening now.

Based on case trends, probably going to be a massive decrease in infections and hospitalizations nationally over the next 4 weeks or so.

 

[vector2]

Based on case trends, probably going to be a massive decrease in infections and hospitalizations nationally over the next 4 weeks or so.

Yeah, maybe. But just cause it looks like it's peaking here now, I wouldn't count my chickens if the UK is a leading indicator of what a delta surge could look like.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Alabama seems to have figured out the solution...

High rate of Alabama COVID-19 deaths contributes to hospitalization drop

 

[nimbus]

In The Fight Against COVID, Health Workers Aren't Immune To Vaccine Misinformation

About a quarter of U.S. health care workers have refused the COVID-19 vaccine as of July. They share demographic traits with other unvaccinated people and are putting hospitals in a tough spot.

www.npr.org

“Melody Butler, a nurse at Long Island Community Hospital in New York and the executive director of the nonprofit Nurses Who Vaccinate, says she has heard from nurses across the country about why they don't want the vaccine.

Among the reasons: The research was done too quickly; it wasn't fully FDA-approved (at first); they already have antibodies from working the front lines of the pandemic or perhaps from getting the virus already. Many are concerned about how the vaccine affects fertility.

To be clear, all of these concerns have been addressed by scientific experts, and the overwhelming evidence is that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

But Butler points out that widespread misinformation plays a role here, too. And nurses are not taught the ins and outs of vaccine research. The vaccination gap between physicians and nurses, she says, comes down to an education gap.
"When you have these new diseases popping up, it's really on nurses to educate themselves on what the research is," Butler says. "You had nurses who were floundering, looking for information. So now we see this educational gap."

"We are seeing the nurses who weren't trained to recognize poorly written studies; they weren't trained to recognize anti-vaccine propaganda," she says. "And it's very convincing. That's what our struggle is in the nursing community."

 

[nimbus]

Alabama seems to have figured out the solution...

High rate of Alabama COVID-19 deaths contributes to hospitalization drop

All bleeding stops eventually.

 

[yappy]

Great read:

The Long History of Vaccine Mandates in America

The Covid-19 pandemic has revived a debate over public health and individual liberty that goes back to colonial times.

www.google.com

On September 17, 1787, delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government do we have? "A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

Politics are not so much republican vs democrat as much as they are authoritarian vs libertarian.

 

[vector2]

On September 17, 1787, delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government do we have? "A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

Politics are not so much republican vs democrat as much as they are authoritarian vs libertarian.

The problem is all these so-called anti-government mandate libertarians and “muh freedumz” folks don’t actually take any responsibility for their actions. They want their Medicaid and Medicare and for their insurance to cover their $500 antibody infusion after they declined their free, taxpayer funded vaccine. Not to mention the idiot governors in states whose hospitals are now providing crisis-level rationing have no problem taking millions and billions in federal COVID aid while they simultaneously openly promote anti-vax rhetoric. It’s a charade and an embarrassment.

 

[yappy]

The problem is all these so-called anti-government mandate libertarians and “muh freedumz” folks don’t actually take any responsibility for their actions. They want their Medicaid and Medicare and for their insurance to cover their $500 antibody infusion after they declined their free, taxpayer funded vaccine. Not to mention the idiot governors in states whose hospitals are now providing crisis-level rationing have no problem taking millions and billions in federal COVID aid while they simultaneously openly promote anti-vax rhetoric. It’s a charade and an embarrassment.

This is a non-sequester and it's a bad faith argument. Instead of addressing the issue of government overreach, and the challenges of maintaining a republic, you're focusing on people who are on entitlement programs who refused the vaccine. Libertarians oppose these same entitlement programs due to the moral hazard you're pointing out. The same criticism could be made for poor lifestyle decisions, or risk taking behaviors, while on these government insurances. Libertarians are not "anti-government", it's about maximizing personal freedom and autonomy while being skeptical of the powerful.

You're an authoritarian. I get it.

I think vaccination is the right decision. But I don't agree with forcing other people to do it.

 

[vector2]

This is a non-sequester and it's a bad faith argument. Instead of addressing the issue of government overreach, and the challenges of maintaining a republic, you're focusing on people who are on entitlement programs who refused the vaccine. Libertarians oppose these same entitlement programs due to the moral hazard you're pointing out. The same criticism could be made for poor lifestyle decisions, or risk taking behaviors, while on these government insurances. Libertarians are not "anti-government", it's about maximizing personal freedom and autonomy while being skeptical of the powerful.

You're an authoritarian. I get it.

I think vaccination is the right decision. But I don't agree with forcing other people to do it.

You mean "non-sequitur"? At least spell out your false accusations correctly before you make them.

Your portrayal of libertarian thought as it relates to the vaccine is entirely disingenuous and unrealistic. You want to smoke in your house, eat double cheeseburgers, and not wear your seatbelt? Fine. Those decisions only affect you. It is inarguable at this point that your personal vaccination status affects not only you but everyone else. And even if one gets infected but doesn't get anyone else sick, that person still takes up societal healthcare resources which are extremely limited and which we all share.

Simpletons keep persisting in the obesity and smoking comparison, but how is it not plainly obvious that the required years-long effort/attempt and the abysmally low success rates despite billions of dollars spent by big pharma make those conditions in no way analogous to getting free uber ride to CVS to receive a 30 second free shot?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed your idiotic notion of libertarianism as it relates to vaccines over 100 yrs ago:

 

[Mman]

Libertarians are not "anti-government", it's about maximizing personal freedom and autonomy while being skeptical of the powerful.

almost nobody is actually a libertarian in their beliefs because then we start getting into weird discussions about police departments and fire departments and military and roads and on and on and on.

 

[yappy]

You mean "non-sequitur"? At least spell out your false accusations correctly before you make them.

Your portrayal of libertarian thought as it relates to the vaccine is entirely disingenuous and unrealistic. You want to smoke in your house, eat double cheeseburgers, and not wear your seatbelt? Fine. Those decisions only affect you. It is inarguable at this point that your personal vaccination status affects not only you but everyone else. And even if one gets infected but doesn't get anyone else sick, that person still takes up societal healthcare resources which are extremely limited and which we all share.

Simpletons keep persisting in the obesity and smoking comparison, but how is it not plainly obvious that the requjred years-long efforts and the abysmally low success rates despite billions of dollars spent by big pharma make those conditions in no way analogous to getting free uber ride to CVS to receive a 30 second shot?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed your idiotic notion of libertarianism as it relates to vaccines over 100 yrs ago:

View attachment 343627

I know that you could recognize what I meant because in the next sentence I went on to explain your lapse in logic: criticism of government over-reach is not rebutted by criticism of people, in a specific state, getting government funded therapy for a disease that they could have been vaccinated against.
Your responses continue to have insults, strawman, and more hypothetical scenarios; all bad faith (misspellings too). I don't think you are thoughtful person, and you don't think in terms of principals which might be why you're so confused. This exchange has enforced my beliefs that persuasion and volunteerism are preferable to government force, despite the conclusions of a court 100 years ago who feared losing the power of compulsion.

 

[yappy]

Edited: wrong post.

 

[vector2]

I know that you could recognize what I meant because in the next sentence I went on to explain your lapse in logic: criticism of government over-reach is not rebutted by criticism of people, in a specific state, getting government funded therapy for a disease that they could have been vaccinated against.
Your responses continue to have insults, strawman, and more hypothetical scenarios; all bad faith (misspellings too). I don't think you are thoughtful person, and you don't think in terms of principals which might be why you're so confused. This exchange has enforced my beliefs that persuasion and volunteerism are preferable to government force, despite the conclusions of a court 100 years ago who feared losing the power of compulsion.

When you try to apply childish libertarian principles (btw, "principals," the word you used, refers to people who run schools) to people whose decisions are causing direct harm to other individuals, and then try to state that the government doesn't have a vested interested in enforcing some public health restraints, it becomes pretty obvious who here is totally devoid of thoughtfulness and arguing in bad faith.

 

[vector2]

And more generally, in regard to the statement "criticism of government over-reach is not rebutted by criticism of people, in a specific state, getting government funded therapy for a disease that they could have been vaccinated against," that assertion is totally erroneous.

In the hypothetical libertarian utopia, there is no government funded healthcare. There may be private insurance, but even that is a bit distasteful to the Ayn Randian mindset if the risk sharing involves your premiums covering someone else's care. The libertarian ideal is you pay the doctor and the hospital their requested fees and they render their services, full stop.

The farther you get away from direct fee for service, the less obligation there is to 1. Get exactly the care you request 2. Be free of any requirements the ultimate payor imposes on you.

The vast majority of anti-vax libertarian dumdums want all the freedom that comes with fee for service, but none of the obligation that comes from living in a government-funded healthcare ecosystem where a degree of risk sharing is unavoidable. It's cognitive dissonance at its finest.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Nobody who wants to claim freedom in regards to the vaccine doesn't have a leg to stand on, cause EVERYONE seemed to be completely on board with the TSA, which is a HUGE invasion of everyone's privacy ANYTIME you might want to travel anywhere. These people are perfectly ok with patdowns and whatever the hell rays those machines use that you stand in. Where were their screams of individual rights and personal freedoms back then?

 

[nimbus]

almost nobody is actually a libertarian in their beliefs because then we start getting into weird discussions about police departments and fire departments and military and roads and on and on and on.

We need separate libertarian hospitals and libertarian health plans for unvaxxed libertarians. Oh wait.

 

[nimbus]

Nobody who wants to claim freedom in regards to the vaccine doesn't have a leg to stand on, cause EVERYONE seemed to be completely on board with the TSA, which is a HUGE invasion of everyone's privacy ANYTIME you might want to travel anywhere. These people are perfectly ok with patdowns and whatever the hell rays those machines use that you stand in. Where were their screams of individual rights and personal freedoms back then?

Maybe they take the bus.

 

[yappy]

When you try to apply childish libertarian principles (btw, "principals," the word you used, refers to people who run schools) to people whose decisions are causing direct harm to other individuals, and then try to state that the government doesn't have a vested interested in enforcing some public health restraints, it becomes pretty obvious who here is totally devoid of thoughtfulness and arguing in bad faith.

Individual rights, personal autonomy, limited government, and peaceful relationships with other citizens are not childish ideas. You keep calling people names like "childish", "dumdums", "utopia", and using hyperbolic examples to defend some other position; that is bad faith. I'm not against some public health measures. I'm against the government forcing others to take a medication against their will. If hospitals determine the risk/benefits are in favor of mandatory vaccination for employment, absent government mandates, then I think that is acceptable. Aside from that, I think it would be good if hospitals, insurance companies, and professional organizations did a better job advertising the safety and benefits of vaccination. Persuasion is preferable to force.

 

[vector2]

Individual rights, personal autonomy, limited government, and peaceful relationships with other citizens are not childish ideas. You keep calling people names like "childish", "dumdums", "utopia", and using hyperbolic examples to defend some other position; that is bad faith. I'm not against some public health measures. I'm against the government forcing others to take a medication against their will. If hospitals determine the risk/benefits are in favor of mandatory vaccination for employment, absent government mandates, then I think that is acceptable. Aside from that, I think it would be good if hospitals, insurance companies, and professional organizations did a better job advertising the safety and benefits of vaccination.

The ideas of rights and autonomy are not intrinsically childish. Yours and some others' interpretation of those ideas as they apply to vaccine policy are what's childish, because you can't accept that having rights and having autonomy is inseparable from having an iota of responsibility...assuming one wants to take part in society. No one is being *forced* to take the vaccine. You're free to go live in the woods off the grid and nary a vaccine will you have to take. Want to work in healthcare and not have to take the vaccine? Fine, go find a healthcare facility that doesn't take CMS dollars.

You can say I'm being hyperbolic, but everyone here has noticed that you're arguing in bad faith because you haven't actually engaged or responded to a specific argument. You haven't explained *why* similar comparisons such as mandatory seatbelts or airbags or "some public health measures" [that you're in favor of] are valid, but vaccine mandates are not. You didn't explain *why* we don't have to listen to Supreme Court precedent. Similarly, you never actually contested that longstanding, chronic, difficult-to-treat diseases like obesity or nicotine dependence which take up beaucoup healthcare resources are, indeed, categorically different than a 30 second shot at CVS. And finally, you keep insisting that the government, like CMS for instance, shouldn't have the right to enforce a mandate, but you never explain why they wouldn't have the authority to do so if they're the ones writing the checks. It would be like trying to say the hospital and a residency are entitled to CMS dollars to fund the residents, but they can get that hundred grand per resident without having to follow the stipulation that they must see Medicare and Medicaid pts.

 

[vector2]

Aside from that, I think it would be good if hospitals, insurance companies, and professional organizations did a better job advertising the safety and benefits of vaccination.

How are you even able to say this with a straight face? It's impossible to open a website, scroll social media, watch a YouTube video, or watch a TV show without fifteen ads about how the vaccine is safe, effective, and FDA approved. Everyone from Trump to Obama has said to get it.

The vaccine has been out since December. Now that we are post-FDA approval, 90% of people out there have made up their minds to either get it or not get it, and the ones who have decided not to mostly live in a propaganda bubble where they will just not hear or not listen to reason about the safety and benefits. Trying to point to a failed advertising campaign is a disingenuous red herring.

 

[Guillemot]

Ill go ahead and say what we are all thinking: Yappy is stupid. LOL

 

[pgg]

"We are seeing the nurses who weren't trained to recognize poorly written studies; they weren't trained to recognize anti-vaccine propaganda," she says. "And it's very convincing. That's what our struggle is in the nursing community."

Be still my beating heart

Did someone just say something non-congratulatory and non-worshipful about heroic nurses? Hope he's still able to breath through the layer of feathered tar.

 

[deleted941485]

Party like it’s 1999. Stop working. Spend and consume as much as possible. Eat badly, drink heavily, lots of sex and drugs. Duh.

Its a curious proposition but honestly its something I think more people should entertain. Im firmly in the camp that things don't get better they just slowly get worse. So rather than trying to manage the decline or slow the decline etc etc. screw it...run out the clock. Have as many children as possible from whoever you want...who cares who raises them? Spend more money by taking out loans: Inflation is not the savers friend. Vote for the most crazy bat**** insane politicians you possibly can especially if they promise you can have whatever you desire. Take Bribes. Consume obscene amounts of goods and services. Sleep Around. Get on the Welfare Train. Take Drugs. And if anyone asks about a bill, tell them you can make soap out of my dead body. When or If your children ever ask why The US or the world is the way it is: Give them the line our parents and our leaders gave us, it'll all sort itself out in the end.

Giving up is the best medicine!

 

[nimbus]

Be still my beating heart

Did someone just say something non-congratulatory and non-worshipful about heroic nurses? Hope he's still able to breath through the layer of feathered tar.

The quote is by a nurse. Only a nurse could say that without being crucified.

 

[deleted126335]

The quote is by a nurse. Only a nurse could say that without being crucified.

It's not their fault. It's that they are not completely educated and trained. Or so the quote said. Can we memorialize that for future use?

 

[nimbus]

Ohhh the irony….




They Shunned Covid Vaccines but Embraced Antibody Treatment


“Sept. 18, 2021
Lanson Jones did not think that the coronavirus would come for him. An avid tennis player in Houston who had not caught so much as a cold during the pandemic, he had refused a vaccine because he worried that it would spoil his streak of good health.
But contracting Covid shattered his faith in his body’s defenses — so much so that Mr. Jones, nose clogged and appetite vanished, began hunting for anything to spare himself a nightmarish illness.
The answer turned out to be monoclonal antibodies, a year-old, laboratory-created drug no less experimental than the vaccine. In a glass-walled enclosure at Houston Methodist Hospital this month, Mr. Jones, 65, became one of more than a million patients, including Donald J. Trump and Joe Rogan, to receive an antibody infusion as the virus has battered the United States.
Vaccine-resistant Americans are turning to the treatment with a zeal that has, at times, mystified their doctors, chasing down lengthy infusions after rejecting vaccines that cost one-hundredth as much. Orders have exploded so quickly this summer — to 168,000 doses per week in late August, up from 27,000 in July — that the Biden administration warned states this week of a dwindling national supply.
The federal government, which was already covering the cost of the treatment — currently about $2,100 per dose — has now taken over its distribution as well. For the coming weeks, the government has told states to expect scaled-back shipments because of the looming shortages.
With seven Southern states accounting for 70 percent of orders, the new process has unsettled some of their governors, who have made the antibody treatment central to their strategy for enduring a catastrophic wave of the Delta variant.”

 

[vector2]

Ohhh the irony….




They Shunned Covid Vaccines but Embraced Antibody Treatment


“Sept. 18, 2021
Lanson Jones did not think that the coronavirus would come for him. An avid tennis player in Houston who had not caught so much as a cold during the pandemic, he had refused a vaccine because he worried that it would spoil his streak of good health.
But contracting Covid shattered his faith in his body’s defenses — so much so that Mr. Jones, nose clogged and appetite vanished, began hunting for anything to spare himself a nightmarish illness.
The answer turned out to be monoclonal antibodies, a year-old, laboratory-created drug no less experimental than the vaccine. In a glass-walled enclosure at Houston Methodist Hospital this month, Mr. Jones, 65, became one of more than a million patients, including Donald J. Trump and Joe Rogan, to receive an antibody infusion as the virus has battered the United States.
Vaccine-resistant Americans are turning to the treatment with a zeal that has, at times, mystified their doctors, chasing down lengthy infusions after rejecting vaccines that cost one-hundredth as much. Orders have exploded so quickly this summer — to 168,000 doses per week in late August, up from 27,000 in July — that the Biden administration warned states this week of a dwindling national supply.
The federal government, which was already covering the cost of the treatment — currently about $2,100 per dose — has now taken over its distribution as well. For the coming weeks, the government has told states to expect scaled-back shipments because of the looming shortages.
With seven Southern states accounting for 70 percent of orders, the new process has unsettled some of their governors, who have made the antibody treatment central to their strategy for enduring a catastrophic wave of the Delta variant.”

So...it's experimental, it costs $2100, the federal government is paying for it, and "The Biden administration has also invested $150 million in expanding access to monoclonal antibodies, and Houston Methodist has used federal money to arrange medical taxis for patients struggling with transportation."

Hmm, I wonder what our special libertarian friends think. Why are my (substantial) taxes going toward paying for someone else's $2100 treatment when we know for a fact that a $20 vaccine would've worked? What about all that blathering about a limited small government? This isn't early 2020 when nobody knew what the hell was going on and hospitals with shutdown ORs and pts with crappy insurance were getting bankrupted by covid admissions so the feds had to step in. There has been a free 80-97% effective preventive measure available for months that these people are irresponsibly not getting. Seems like my liberty is getting infringed upon by having to shoulder their burden /dramatically cues Ben Franklin Republic quote

 

[yappy]

The ideas of rights and autonomy are not intrinsically childish. Yours and some others' interpretation of those ideas as they apply to vaccine policy are what's childish, because you can't accept that having rights and having autonomy is inseparable from having an iota of responsibility...assuming one wants to take part in society. No one is being *forced* to take the vaccine. You're free to go live in the woods off the grid and nary a vaccine will you have to take. Want to work in healthcare and not have to take the vaccine? Fine, go find a healthcare facility that doesn't take CMS dollars.

You can say I'm being hyperbolic, but everyone here has noticed that you're arguing in bad faith because you haven't actually engaged or responded to a specific argument. You haven't explained *why* similar comparisons such as mandatory seatbelts or airbags or "some public health measures" [that you're in favor of] are valid, but vaccine mandates are not. You didn't explain *why* we don't have to listen to the Supreme Court opinion. Similarly, you never actually contested that longstanding, chronic, difficult-to-treat diseases like obesity or nicotine dependence which take up beaucoup healthcare resources are, indeed, categorically different than a 30 second shot at CVS. And finally, you keep insisting that the government, like CMS for instance, shouldn't have the right to enforce a mandate, but you never explain why they wouldn't have the authority to do so if they're the ones writing the checks. It would be like trying to say the hospital and a residency are entitled to CMS dollars to fund the residents, but they want that hundred grand per resident without having to follow the stipulation that they must see Medicare and Medicaid pts.

Saying vaccine mandates are okay because some unvaccinated people on Medicaid/care were treated for COVID is not a cogent argument. For pointing this out you've done nothing but call me names, strawman me with hyperbolic comments, "living off in the woods", go work elsewhere without "CMS dollars", etc. These are all variations of the "what roads would you drive on" argument that has been thoroughly debunked since before Milton Friedman. It errors by accepting that the government has, usually wrongfully, inserted itself into one area of the economy, therefore we must then accept a limitations of our liberties in another area. It's widely known that these are bad faith arguments. Your CMS argument is no different. Yes, CMS dollars pay for peoples treatment (which are really tax dollars from citizens). No, that does not mean it is ethical for the government to mandate healthcare decisions for people. If it were, and I don't believe it is, that same logic could allow the government to mandate other draconian measures in industry for cost saving.

I asked you what your limiting principles were and you gave me examples of mandates in other sectors of the economy. That is not a limiting principle, that is reasoning by analogy. I didn't respond to it earlier because it wasn't worth responding to. You're way too confident in your own views to not realize this. In fact, I think you're a partisan. You would have the opposing view on these mandates if the government party issuing them had an R by their name.

EDIT: On second thought, @vector2 , you've convinced me. Lets see if we can make this alcohol prohibition thing happen again!

 

[vector2]

Saying vaccine mandates are okay because some unvaccinated people on Medicaid/care were treated for COVID is not a cogent argument. For pointing this out you've done nothing but call me names, strawman me with hyperbolic comments, "living off in the woods", go work elsewhere without "CMS dollars", etc. These are all variations of the "what roads would you drive on" argument that has been thoroughly debunked since before Milton Friedman. It errors by accepting that the government has, usually wrongfully, inserted itself into one area of the economy, therefore we must then accept a limitations of our liberties in another area. It's widely known that these are bad faith arguments. Your CMS argument is no different. Yes, CMS dollars pay for peoples treatment (which are really tax dollars from citizens). No, that does not mean it is ethical for the government to mandate healthcare decisions for people. If it were, and I don't believe it is, that same logic could allow the government to mandate other draconian measures in industry for cost saving.

I asked you what your limiting principle were and you gave me examples of mandates in other sectors of the economy. That is not a limiting principle, that is reasoning by analogy. I didn't respond to it earlier because it wasn't worth responding to. You're way too confident in your own views to not realize this. In fact, I think you're a partisan. You would have the opposing view on these mandates if the government party issuing them had an R by their name.

So, since you're still dodging answering any salient points, I'll just ask you again more directly:

1. You said there are "some public health measures" which you are in favor of. What are these measures? Are they sanctioned by the government? If so, what gives the government the right to mandate these individual health decisions and not others?

2. Do you acknowledge that there is a categorical world of difference between the utilization of healthcare (be it privately or publicly funded) for chronic, decades-long, difficult-to-treat diseases, and a severe acute illness which can essentially be totally prevented with a 30 second two series injection?

3. Do you have any good legal reasons at all why we don't need to respect the precedent in Jacobsen as it pertains to public health, or are you just throwing your personal opinion out there and expecting us all to agree with you?

4. You state that the taxpayer foots the bill for CMS pts but yet it is not ethical to mandate a vaccine that keeps hospitals and the entire healthcare system from being overwhelmed. How do you reconcile your view with the ethical disaster that is the thousands of patients with other conditions such as MIs, CVAs, cancer, sepsis, and traumas etc who are now receiving substandard or no care because the hospitals are clogged with unvaccinated covid pts?

 

[vector2]

.

EDIT: On second thought, @vector2 , you've convinced me. Lets see if we can make this alcohol prohibition thing happen again!

You were so close there with your flailing....

Until you forgot that drunks don't take up every ICU bed in the country and your blood alcohol level doesn't give everyone else in the room ARDS.

 

[yappy]

So, since you're still dodging answering any salient points, I'll just ask you again more directly:

1. You said there are "some public health measures" which you are in favor of. What are these measures? Are they sanctioned by the government? If so, what gives the government the right to mandate these individual health decisions and not others?

2. Do you acknowledge that there is a categorical world of difference between the utilization of healthcare (be it privately or publicly funded) for chronic, decades-long, difficult-to-treat diseases, and a severe acute illness which can essentially be totally prevented with a 30 second two series injection?

3. Do you have any good legal reasons at all why we don't need to respect the precedent in Jacobsen as it pertains to public health, or are you just throwing your personal opinion out there and expecting us all to agree with you?

4. You state that the taxpayer foots the bill for CMS pts but yet it is not ethical to mandate a vaccine that keeps hospitals and the entire healthcare system from being overwhelmed. How do you reconcile your view with the ethical disaster that is the thousands of patients with other conditions such as MIs, CVAs, cancer, sepsis, and traumas etc who are now receiving substandard or no care because the hospitals are clogged with unvaccinated covid pts?

This is not a response to my post and I have answered these questions explicitly or implicitly in my previous posts.

 

[vector2]

This is not a response to my post and I have answered these questions explicitly or implicitly in my previous posts.

No, you haven't.

How bout we start with just the first one? What are the public health measures you're in favor of? You said there were "some" but didn't actually share which ones.

 

[IMGASMD]

I was going to respond by saying that “we are all anesthesiologists, we are mostly very practical people…..” but wanted to check if I made the correct assumptions.

Nope.

I love a good argument and couch philosophers; however, not when you have 600K dead, people cross state lines to seek care, and an Olympic athlete who is admitted to hospital.

**** your slippery slope, **** your government intrusion. Why don’t you try to put an endotracheal tube in someone who is 500lb, with Sats in the single digit who did his own research about vaccine, knowing full well the chance of him survival is less than my 95 yo grandma with a broken hip. But it’s my ****ing job, so I have to do it and put rest of my family in danger. Personally know people who had vaccine, now is positive with symptoms. It’s bull****.

Talking about valuing freedom? I want the freedom to keep working, without worrying that I may be a vector to transmit a deadly disease to my patients.

/rant

Now going back to your regular programming.

Edit: grammar and words

 

[Leon'sMom]

No Vaccine Rules for Big U.N. Meeting: Free Pass for World Leaders

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell, is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that indicate the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.

 

[Neopolymath]

This is one of the few times I am happy not to be reading SB247's posts lol. The libertarian posts are interesting and silly during normal times and just plain stupid right now.

 

[Matty44]

"Vaccine has risks, so does covid" is a great example of a true statement that is nonetheless highly misleading. Its the equivalent of saying "Playing russian roulette has risks, but so does walking down the street." Accurate, but the risks are off by multiple orders of magnitude to the point where the risk of one is insignificant in comparison to the other.

Depends on the population we're talking about here. 65+ for sure. Under 18?

"The study estimated that CAE (cardiac adverse event) incidence was between 3.7 and 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk (August 21, 2021) in healthy boys aged 12–15 receiving their second mRNA dose. They estimated that the CAE incidence was 2.1–3.5 times higher in healthy boys aged 16–17."

Heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccine: Are boys at higher risk?

A non-peer-reviewed study found increased heart inflammation risk in boys who had been vaccinated. However, there are many concerns about the study.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Are you ok with mandating high schoolers to get the shot?

 

[IMGASMD]

Depends on the population we're talking about here. 65+ for sure. Under 18?

"The study estimated that CAE (cardiac adverse event) incidence was between 3.7 and 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk (August 21, 2021) in healthy boys aged 12–15 receiving their second mRNA dose. They estimated that the CAE incidence was 2.1–3.5 times higher in healthy boys aged 16–17."

Heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccine: Are boys at higher risk?

A non-peer-reviewed study found increased heart inflammation risk in boys who had been vaccinated. However, there are many concerns about the study.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Are you ok with mandating high schoolers to get the shot?

A new, non-peer-reviewed study concluded that healthy boys aged 12–17 years had a higher hospitalization rate due to heart inflammation after their second mRNA COVID-19 vaccination than the expected hospitalization rate for COVID-19 in that age group.

If more than 70% of the adults are vaccinated, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?

If we actually look out for the old, the sick and the young, then we wouldn’t be hitting the third, forth, fifth wave now. Selfish and ignorant. I am out of nice words.

 

[JoelJoel84]

While I also get most of my up to date literature from MedicalNewsToday.com, and non peer-reviewed studies that even the linked article points out have severe limitations and issues including “ Using unverified VAERS data to calculate the incidence of heart inflammation is not recommended in the VAERS data disclaimer, limiting the accuracy and applicability of the study’s findings.”…

Yes, I would advocate vaccinating them because I am an evidence-based physician acting in the best interest of my patients, and not a stay at home mom selling overpriced beauty serums on Instagram I link in between various mask mandate and Joe Biden memes.

Depends on the population we're talking about here. 65+ for sure. Under 18?

"The study estimated that CAE (cardiac adverse event) incidence was between 3.7 and 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk (August 21, 2021) in healthy boys aged 12–15 receiving their second mRNA dose. They estimated that the CAE incidence was 2.1–3.5 times higher in healthy boys aged 16–17."

Heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccine: Are boys at higher risk?

A non-peer-reviewed study found increased heart inflammation risk in boys who had been vaccinated. However, there are many concerns about the study.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Are you ok with mandating high schoolers to get the shot?

 

[Matty44]

There's even more ground for vaccines because it not getting vaccinated leads to others' harm. I'd rather see it left up to the private sector to make requirements, but we'll see how it goes.

Please explain how being unvaccinated really leads to REAL increased risk of harm for others, instead of just stating it as a foregone conclusion.

As of a few days ago (Sept 20), about 181 million people had been vaccinated, and if you've been vaccinated, the latest data shows that you have roughly a 1 in 50,000 chance of dying from covid, and if you're under 65, that drops down to ~1 in 365,000. Chances of being hospitalized are about 1 in 15,000, and again, if you're under 65 it jumps to nearly 1 in 50,000.

COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigations and Reporting | CDC

Information and resources to help public health departments and laboratories investigate and report COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases.

www.cdc.gov

For those under 18, there are 73.1 million youths in the US, and as of the latest AAP covid statistics weekly report on 9/16, we were up to a grand total of 479 deaths over the entire course of the pandemic. That's a risk of 1 in 150,000. And I can't find it at the moment, but when u18 deaths were in the 300s, there was a study that IIRC, stated that almost every single one of those 300+ deaths were in children that had significant co-morbidities to begin with. Needless to say, your risk of death from covid if you're under 18 and healthy (or vaccinated) is statistically pretty much zero.

https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%209.16%20FINAL.pdf

Now, I think its safe to assume that a majority of the break-through infections have come in situations where the vaccinated person was unmasked. I'm just assuming that because most people who are vaccinated are having at least some level of contact with other people while being unmasked. Even in our hospital, while our group wears masks continually in the hospital, they usually come off while hanging out in the lounge. Just sayin.... If you are vaccinated and are still concerned about getting covid (despite the small risk outlined above) from an unvaccinated person, you can wear your mask perpetually in all situations and your risk is probably lowered from what the latest data shows.

All that being said, we are now threatening personal liberty (GASP! and insert liberal eye roll here) in order to remove lessen the risk of death that already approaches that of being struck by lightning (1 in 500k)??? How little is personal freedom worth to you?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm pro-vaccine. I'm vaccinated. My wife is vaccinated. I felt the risk to us outweighed the risk of the vaccine (which is obviously very small). If I had a 10 year old son however, I wouldn't get him vaccinated at this point. The risks seem to outweigh the benefits at this point...see my previous post.

Listen, if you got vaccinated, you're gonna be fine, regardless of how many other people refuse to take the shot. If you're worried about your kid who can't yet get vaccinated, don't worry, they're gonna be fine, regardless of how many other people refuse to take the shot. When will the risk of death to you be so infinitesimally small that you will stop worrying about other people? What's your cut off? 1 in 750,000? 1 in 1,000,000? Ya gotta ask yourself that, cause a lot of you seem to not be ok with the 1 in 365,000 risk that currently exists. Personally, that level of risk doesn't make me think twice. And your current risk of hospitalization of 1 in 50k, is that not ok with you? You have ~1 in 9000 chance of dying in a car crash for every year that you drive. Does that stop anyone?

Lets all work on our risk assessment a bit here.

And yes, the elderly and immunocompromised are at greater risk than the numbers I presented, but they can all gladly where N95s wherever they please or they can avoid whatever situations make them uncomfortable, but to force people to take a vaccine that makes them uncomfortable (whether you think that's wrongheaded or not), is wrong. Based on the data, its a pretty weak argument to say that unvaccinated folks are really putting others at that much greater risk, so we have to treat adults as adults, and let people have their personal freedoms to inject or not inject.

 

[Matty44]

While I also get most of my up to date literature from MedicalNewsToday.com, and non peer-reviewed studies that even the linked article points out have severe limitations and issues including “ Using unverified VAERS data to calculate the incidence of heart inflammation is not recommended in the VAERS data disclaimer, limiting the accuracy and applicability of the study’s findings.”…

Yes, I would advocate vaccinating them because I am an evidence-based physician acting in the best interest of my patients, and not a stay at home mom selling overpriced beauty serums on Instagram I link in between various mask mandate and Joe Biden memes.

Ok, I agree that's not rock solid data, for sure, but you don't need much to outweigh the risk of the vaccine for young folk. Here's data from JAMA that shows that "In this cohort study of 1597 US competitive collegiate athletes undergoing comprehensive cardiovascular testing, the prevalence of clinical myocarditis based on a symptom-based screening strategy was only 0.31%. Screening with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging increased the prevalence of clinical and subclinical myocarditis by a factor of 7.4 to 2.3%."

Prevalence of Clinical and Subclinical Myocarditis in Competitive Athletes With Recent SARS-CoV-2 Infection

This cohort study assesses the prevalence of myocarditis in athletes with COVID-19 and compares screening strategies for safe return to play.

jamanetwork.com

So there's a risk of myocarditis somewhere in the range of 0.31-2.3% for college students. Now I understand 18-24 year olds arent identical to those under 18, but whats the % risk we are talking about in kids from covid? Risk of death is ~1 in 150,000 aka 0.00067%. And risk of hospitalization (which I haven't found exact data....pls link if you got it) is about 0.01% for Americans under 18 (based off the AAP data from about 1/2 the country). So are you telling me that if I'm deciding to vaccinate my child and I come to you for evidence based medicine, you can definitively say the risks of the vaccine are less than covid? If so, please show me the data.

 

[vector2]

From their own website

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

A new, non-peer-reviewed study concluded that healthy boys aged 12–17 years had a higher hospitalization rate due to heart inflammation after their second mRNA COVID-19 vaccination than the expected hospitalization rate for COVID-19 in that age group.

If more than 70% of the adults are vaccinated, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?

If we actually look out for the old, the sick and the young, then we wouldn’t be hitting the third, forth, fifth wave now. Selfish and ignorant. I am out of nice words.

See, that first point there isn't actually accurate. The rate of heart inflammation the researchers reported isn't the hospitalization rate, its just the rate they think cardiac events happened at.

What matters is cardiac event rate of the vaccine versus cardiac event rate from catching COVID.

The highest risk group at 162 cardiac events per 1 million vaccinated people. Myocarditis after COVID infection is around 561 per million at the lowest for teenaged boys.

So the vaccine is still 3.4X less likely to cause this than catching COVID is.

We don't even need to try to prove how unscientific VAERS is.