Vaccine mandates

[vector2]

Another aspect to the question "Is an unvaccinated child a big risk to the public good? "

"
Only 43 percent of public school parents and guardians said they wanted their children in a classroom full time this year after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on July 27 updated its health guidance to recognize the threat of the delta variant.

That was down from 58 percent of parents and guardians who said they wanted in-person instruction before July 27, according to a survey funded by the CDC through the Atlanta-based nonprofit CDC Foundation. It polled 1,448 public school parents and guardians July 23-Aug. 8."

Obviously someone who doesn't care if wave after covid wave shuts down hundreds down children's hospitals won't care about schools, but for the rest of us, there's never going to be a great way to ensure that school remote learning, isolation and quarantining stops until herd immunity in children is reached.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[greatnt249]

You're saying that in order to participate in society you must put the greater good of public health above what you believe is best for you and your family? And that if I put what I believe is best for my off spring before the needs of the general public, then I'm selfish? I think I understand ya.

"The common good before the individual good" aka "gemeinnutz geht vor eigennutz" as I believe someone once said.

It's one thing to create strawman arguments; it's another to create strawman arguments by equating getting vaccinated with living in Nazi Germany...it's not exactly a good look for you.

And yeah, I'm gonna keep saying very low risk.

I'm able to say its a low rate overall, because it is a low rate overall. Like ~0.05% hospitalization rate, of which 98%+ will recover fully. So yeah, that's how. Even if there is a spike in pediatric hospitalizations cause of delta and school starting, that doesn't negate statistics.

Let's pretend your numbers are accurate, and this is what I was referencing before when I said humans are notoriously terrible at risk assessment. You have a tendency to quote percentages when you make your arguments, which I suspect is an attempt to minimize the actual impact of looking at raw numbers. You may be doing this consciously or subconsciously, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're earnestly trying to make your point.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, ****ed lies, and statistics." See, I can quote people too. Minimizing data to "just" percentages ignores the fact that taking a small percentage of a large number is *gasp* still a large number. And while you may imply that it's not *that* large a number, the fact remains that our healthcare infrastructure is not designed to handle those kinds of numbers (at least not all at once) even if it doesn't *seem* like it is affecting that many people so adversely in the general population. What you are seeing is a logjam in the hospitals. Why, you might ask? Because severe COVID cases don't recover and get sent home quick enough to allow sufficient turnaround time to open up ICU access for non-COVID related critical illnesses, whose clinical courses tend to depend on timely access to higher level-of-care medicine. You can't argue that it's a slippery slope or fearmongering when this is happening real-time in front of us.

 

[chessknt]

We don’t have an exclusive on idiots and shysters.



“A popular shaman in Sri Lanka who claimed to be able to cure coronavirus patients with a holy water died last week after being infected with the virus, a health ministry official said this weekend.

The shaman, known as Eliyantha Lindsay White, was not vaccinated. He died on Wednesday after being taken to a hospital, the official said.

Mr. White was an influential and divisive figure in Sri Lanka, where about 53 percent of people have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, according to the Our World in Data project at the University of Oxford. The shaman, who was 48, practiced alternative medicine involving questionable potions whose ingredients were never publicly disclosed.

Some high-ranking officials in the Sri Lankan government and several professional athletes have said publicly that they believed in Mr. White’s healing powers. But he was denounced by medical professionals.

“There is no credible evidence to show if there was a positive result from his work,” said Dr. Samantha Ananda, a spokeswoman for the Government Medical Officers’ Association, a major trade union for doctors in Sri Lanka. “We do not recommend anything that is not proven in a scientific method.”

Dr. Ananda said that the politicians who had publicly endorsed Mr. White might have done so to ingratiate themselves with his legion of fans.

Contact information for Mr. White’s family was not available, and a telephone message left with a person close to the family was not returned.

In November, three ministers in Sri Lanka’s government, including a former health minister, were shown on video throwing pots containing Mr. White’s holy water into several rivers that serve as the main sources of drinking water in the country. Mr. White had said that ingesting the concoction would cure Covid-19.

Pavithra Wanniarachchi, the former health minister, subsequently contracted the virus and spent two weeks in intensive care, according to the BBC. None of the three ministers in the video responded to phone calls seeking comment.”

A Sri Lankan shaman who touted a cure for Covid died after contracting the disease. (Published 2021)

Eliyantha Lindsay White, who was not vaccinated, claimed to be able to cure coronavirus patients using a holy water.

www.nytimes.com

We do however pour near unlimited resources into their care to keep them alive so they can go back out and keep doing it while simultaneously ****ing over all of the non covid medical care in this country.

I am not alone in thinking we need to reassess the assumption that is unethical to ration care to people willingly putting themselves in this position. I think it is unethical that my trauma patients can’t get a qualified nurse to give them good icu care or a rehab bed and my clinic patients can’t get a ****ing procedure done for months to diagnose their lung disease.

 

[dhb]

What's the percentage of obese kids in PICU covid patients?

 

[Matty44]

It's one thing to create strawman arguments; it's another to create strawman arguments by equating getting vaccinated with living in Nazi Germany...it's not exactly a good look for you.



Let's pretend your numbers are accurate, and this is what I was referencing before when I said humans are notoriously terrible at risk assessment. You have a tendency to quote percentages when you make your arguments, which I suspect is an attempt to minimize the actual impact of looking at raw numbers. You may be doing this consciously or subconsciously, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're earnestly trying to make your point.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, ****ed lies, and statistics." See, I can quote people too. Minimizing data to "just" percentages ignores the fact that taking a small percentage of a large number is *gasp* still a large number. And while you may imply that it's not *that* large a number, the fact remains that our healthcare infrastructure is not designed to handle those kinds of numbers (at least not all at once) even if it doesn't *seem* like it is affecting that many people so adversely in the general population. What you are seeing is a logjam in the hospitals. Why, you might ask? Because severe COVID cases don't recover and get sent home quick enough to allow sufficient turnaround time to open up ICU access for non-COVID related critical illnesses, whose clinical courses tend to depend on timely access to higher level-of-care medicine. You can't argue that it's a slippery slope or fearmongering when this is happening real-time in front of us.

First off, I wasn’t creating a straw man. The point was clearly made that prioritizing individual health choices and liberties over the public good is selfish. I was simply drawing reference to the fact that this kind of thinking is a key tenet behind some failed societies. Regardless….

Unlike Vector, who intentionally misinterprets and argues against points I don’t make, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve simply misinterpreted what I’m saying and will therefore restate it for you.

Covid is bad. Every kid and adult in an ICU is a tragedy.

Vaccine is good. Great. A medical marvel to be developed so quickly and to be so efficacious, even though it’s not as good as originally thought. I recommend all adults get it. I think that’s wise.

The point I’m making is not that some hospitals aren’t packed. It’s not that covid isn’t serious in some people. It’s not that people shouldn’t get vaccinated.

My WHOLE point is that there is not compelling enough evidence that unvaccinated children (and adults) pose a great risk to society to the point that they should be required to vaccinate if they don’t want to, for whatever reason they might have, regardless of how dumb you think their reasoning might be. That’s it.

And your argument that I’m minimizing data by looking at the percentages, aka risk assessment, is a silly one. What if I were to try and argue that the vaccine has not been effective as there have been over 6,000 hospitalizations from break through infections in NY state alone! You’d say “ No, no silly man, the vaccine has been very effective as that number only makes up 0.05% of the vaccinated population in NY. That’s a very low rate and shows how good the vaccine has been.” And you’d be correct. If 500 children in A small town in Kansas died from a new virus, oh man, that’d be terrifying, but if 500 out of 75 million kids have died (and some small number have long covid) that’s not quite so terrifying.

And yes, some hospitals are at or near full capacity, not all for sure, but some. The two largest children’s hospitals in my large metropolitan area certainly are not overwhelmed. BUT, no one has answered how much of that can be directly attributed to unvaccinated people. We have staffing shortages in many hospitals, and we know that even if you’re vaccinated, you can pass covid to someone else. A vaccinated person has a 1 in 13,000 chance of hospitalization. Children have a 98%+ chance of full recovery and some data says adults may have about a 2-5% of long covid.

Predicting ‘Long COVID Syndrome’ with Help of a Smartphone App

As devastating as this pandemic has been, it’s truly inspiring to see the many innovative ways in which researchers around the world have enlisted the help of everyday citizens to beat COVID-19. An…

www.google.com

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-10/vaccinated-have-1-in-13-000-chance-of-breakthrough-case-needing-hospitalization

Long COVID-19 rare in children, study says

www.cidrap.umn.edu

So again, very very low chance of long term damage, very very very low chance of death, and with that in mind, seems unreasonable to take away people right to autonomy over their health care decisions.

 

[vector2]

And your argument that I’m minimizing data by looking at the percentages, aka risk assessment, is a silly one. What if I were to try and argue that the vaccine has not been effective as there have been over 6,000 hospitalizations from break through infections in NY state alone! You’d say “ No, no silly man, the vaccine has been very effective as that number only makes up 0.05% of the vaccinated population in NY. That’s a very low rate and shows how good the vaccine has been.” And you’d be correct. If 500 children in A small town in Kansas died from a new virus, oh man, that’d be terrifying, but if 500 out of 75 million kids have died (and some small number have long covid) that’s not quite so terrifying.

Nope, it was definitely a strawman. Saying you don’t want to take a safe vaccine solely because you deem your (or your family’s) individual risk to be quite low is selfish, especially when the societal effects of delaying herd immunity are so devastating to so many people including other children. Just because someone points out to you that we (including our children) are all in this together doesn’t make that person a Nazi. Hope that helps.

As for your “6,000 breakthrough infections in NY” analogy….what you’re missing is that the number of overall pediatric covid hospitalizations is similar to those 6,000…..except in this example there’s only say 5,000 pediatric beds. Ergo, it doesn’t matter if 6,000 is only 0.05% of a larger number. There’s only 5,000 beds. Which is a full-blown pediatric healthcare infrastructure crisis. Is that simple enough for you, or do I need to find an even simpler way to explain it?

 

[deleted126335]

My WHOLE point is that there is not compelling enough evidence that unvaccinated children (and adults) pose a great risk to society to the point that they should be required to vaccinate if they don’t want to, for whatever reason they might have, regardless of how dumb you think their reasoning might be. That’s it.



So again, very very low chance of long term damage, very very very low chance of death, and with that in mind, seems unreasonable to take away people right to autonomy over their health care decisions.

Those are reasonable points. What is also reasonable is that employers should be able to mandate vaccination as a condition of onsite employment. It is also reasonable that businesses should be able to ban non vaccinated customers from onsite visits. It is also reasonable that schools should be able to ban unvaccinated students.

Don't want the vaccine? fine. Be a shut in and home school your kids.

 

[chessknt]

Those are reasonable points. What is also reasonable is that employers should be able to mandate vaccination as a condition of onsite employment. It is also reasonable that businesses should be able to ban non vaccinated customers from onsite visits. It is also reasonable that schools should be able to ban unvaccinated students.

Don't want the vaccine? fine. Be a shut in and home school your kids.

And hospitals should be allowed to reserve at least half of their beds for vaccinated patients and kick out sick COVIDs who show up when there is no room so they can go die in order to preserve a functioning healthcare system for people who actually want to participate in society instead of the first come first serve bull**** we have now.

 

[deleted126335]

And hospitals should be allowed to reserve at least half of their beds for vaccinated patients and kick out sick COVIDs who show up when there is no room so they can go die in order to preserve a functioning healthcare system for people who actually want to participate in society instead of the first come first serve bull**** we have now.

That one is a wee bit over my personal line. Just as what I posted above is over the line for many others.

 

[Matty44]

Yeah, both of you are proposing things that are a big step in the direction of a very, “messy” society.

 

[deleted126335]

Yeah, both of you are proposing things that are a big step in the direction of a very, “messy” society.

All Societies are messy. Just in different ways.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Those are reasonable points. What is also reasonable is that employers should be able to mandate vaccination as a condition of onsite employment. It is also reasonable that businesses should be able to ban non vaccinated customers from onsite visits. It is also reasonable that schools should be able to ban unvaccinated students.

Don't want the vaccine? fine. Be a shut in and home school your kids.

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct and employer, business, and school mandates are "reasonable." Do you really think it's as simple as a few people "choosing" to stay unvaccinated and therefore "choosing" to be shut ins or to home school their children?

With a range of approximately 25 to 60% of any given population still unvaccinated (and presumed to remain unvaccinated), if mandates essentially remove those people from participating in society, don't you think there's going to be real consequences to the functioning of society? We already have help wanted signs at all retail stores and restaurants. We already have a shortage of raw materials and manufactured goods. We already have delays in shipping and trucking goods. We have so few school bus drivers, the National Guard is being called in to drive busses in some states. Healthcare "heroes" who worked the frontline for a year without vaccines are now being shown the door. Who is going to take care of all of the patients now? All sectors of commerce and service are about to get slammed by these mandates.

I understand carrot and stick strategy. One might think it's better for society to shut in the unvaccinated. But is it? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[greatnt249]

My WHOLE point is that there is not compelling enough evidence that unvaccinated children (and adults) pose a great risk to society to the point that they should be required to vaccinate if they don’t want to, for whatever reason they might have, regardless of how dumb you think their reasoning might be. That’s it.

What exactly is your definition of "compelling enough evidence?" Refer back to my comment about moving goalposts. Individuals are welcome to indulge in "dumb reasoning" so long as it doesn't impact or infringe on the safety or rights of others.

And your argument that I’m minimizing data by looking at the percentages, aka risk assessment, is a silly one. What if I were to try and argue that the vaccine has not been effective as there have been over 6,000 hospitalizations from break through infections in NY state alone! You’d say “ No, no silly man, the vaccine has been very effective as that number only makes up 0.05% of the vaccinated population in NY. That’s a very low rate and shows how good the vaccine has been.” And you’d be correct. If 500 children in A small town in Kansas died from a new virus, oh man, that’d be terrifying, but if 500 out of 75 million kids have died (and some small number have long covid) that’s not quite so terrifying.

This, by the way, is the literal definition of a strawman argument; I'm not going to refute arguments made against points I either never made or against words you presume I would have written/spoken.

 

[DoctwoB]

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct and employer, business, and school mandates are "reasonable." Do you really think it's as simple as a few people "choosing" to stay unvaccinated and therefore "choosing" to be shut ins or to home school their children?

With a range of approximately 25 to 60% of any given population still unvaccinated (and presumed to remain unvaccinated), if mandates essentially remove those people from participating in society, don't you think there's going to be real consequences to the functioning of society? We already have help wanted signs at all retail stores and restaurants. We already have a shortage of raw materials and manufactured goods. We already have delays in shipping and trucking goods. We have so few school bus drivers, the National Guard is being called in to drive busses in some states. Healthcare "heroes" who worked the frontline for a year without vaccines are now being shown the door. Who is going to take care of all of the patients now? All sectors of commerce and service are about to get slammed by these mandates.

I understand carrot and stick strategy. One might think it's better for society to shut in the unvaccinated. But is it? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

The fact is when push comes to shove, people get the vaccine rather then lose schools, jobs, etc.

NY state had protests about vaccine mandates for healthcare workers. But very few actually quit. There will always be vocal hold outs, but it will be a small fraction of the currently unvaccinated.

 

[Matty44]

What exactly is your definition of "compelling enough evidence?" Refer back to my comment about moving goalposts. Individuals are welcome to indulge in "dumb reasoning" so long as it doesn't impact or infringe on the safety or rights of others.



This, by the way, is the literal definition of a strawman argument; I'm not going to refute arguments made against points I either never made or against words you presume I would have written/spoken.

I was using your logic and flipping the script to show you how flawed the logic was.

 

[greatnt249]

Healthcare "heroes" who worked the frontline for a year without vaccines are now being shown the door.

I'm sure the overwhelming majority of healthcare workers never asked to be labeled a "hero" for showing up to simply do their jobs during this very difficult year and a half, and certainly none of us expected to have the public then turn and deride healthcare workers and expert opinion in more recent memory for daring to recommend probably the most simple means by which to bring this pandemic to a halt, or at the very least, render the virus impotent so that we could carry on doing what we do best on a daily basis. I remember when the public was clamoring for something, anything, to bring this pandemic to an end before the advent of the vaccine, and now that we have an overwhelmingly successful solution to reducing severe illness/mortality with minimal risk/side effects, now people are refusing this option because of some convoluted definition of liberty? The way I see it, vaccination is the means by which we can all REGAIN liberties lost BECAUSE of the pandemic.

The above makes it sound like dismissed healthcare workers are victims, when, in reality, they were given a choice and they CHOSE not to get vaccinated KNOWING that they would be dismissed as a result. If you hold your principles so highly that you're willing to remove yourself as a valued member of the healthcare workforce, stretching thin the remaining available workforce to take care of sick patients now inundating our hospitals, all because you refused to accept an overwhelmingly safe treatment with about as robust data regarding safety as one could ask for, then so be it.

 

[greatnt249]

I was using your logic and flipping the script to show you how flawed the logic was.

Maybe that's what you thought you were doing, but I can assure you that isn't the case.

 

[vector2]

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct and employer, business, and school mandates are "reasonable." Do you really think it's as simple as a few people "choosing" to stay unvaccinated and therefore "choosing" to be shut ins or to home school their children?

With a range of approximately 25 to 60% of any given population still unvaccinated (and presumed to remain unvaccinated), if mandates essentially remove those people from participating in society, don't you think there's going to be real consequences to the functioning of society? We already have help wanted signs at all retail stores and restaurants. We already have a shortage of raw materials and manufactured goods. We already have delays in shipping and trucking goods. We have so few school bus drivers, the National Guard is being called in to drive busses in some states. Healthcare "heroes" who worked the frontline for a year without vaccines are now being shown the door. Who is going to take care of all of the patients now? All sectors of commerce and service are about to get slammed by these mandates.

I understand carrot and stick strategy. One might think it's better for society to shut in the unvaccinated. But is it? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Houston Methodist required all 26,000 employees to be vaccinated in June. Only 150 people quit.

Despite whatever fever dream is going on in the MAGAqanonverse, society will indeed go on despite the mandates which you think signal the death of the Republic.

 

[greatnt249]

Houston Methodist required all 26,000 employees to be vaccinated in June. Only 150 people quit.

Despite whatever fever dream is going on in the MAGAqanonverse, society will indeed go on despite the mandates which you think signal the death of the Republic.

Since we're discussing numbers and statistics, I think it bears mentioning for the sake of other arguments that may or may not be made that that is only 0.58% of the workforce at Houston Methodist that was "adversely affected" by the vaccine mandate.

 

[Matty44]

Maybe that's what you thought you were doing, but I can assure you that isn't the case.

You said that I was minimizing numbers because I was looking at just percentages, and your point seemed to be that the raw number was still large, even though it was a small percent, therefore it mustn't be minimized. There are "large" numbers of people getting covid post-vaccination, but that certainly doesn't invalidate the effectiveness of the vaccine because of the small PERCENTAGE of people that are having breakthrough cases. Call it what you want, but its the exact logic you used, in reverse, and it just goes to show you how weak your logic was.

 

[Matty44]

What exactly is your definition of "compelling enough evidence?" Refer back to my comment about moving goalposts. Individuals are welcome to indulge in "dumb reasoning" so long as it doesn't impact or infringe on the safety or rights of others.

See, you make a comment like this boldly like it actually means something or sets up practical guidelines about how a society full of people with rights should function, however, your statement lacks any meaningful criteria to define what it means to "impact or infringe on the safety or rights of others". If an individual's action results in a risk of death/illness to nearby members of society at the rate of 1 out 10 people, that person is absolutely infringing on the safety of others and action must be taken to stop that person. If a persons actions (or inactions) increase the surrounding communities chance of death/illness by 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000, it must be looked at differently than the action that causes a 10% risk to the nearby community. I think preventing harm to 1 out of 10 people is probably worth infringing on an individuals rights to some degree. I don't believe that preventing potential harm (that could also be influenced by other confounding factors) to the community at a rate of 1 in 10,000 or more is not worth removing individual liberties or autonomy over medical decision. Heck, we have states where you can still legally talk on a cell phone while driving. And I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I'd bet a pretty penny that those people are putting the general public at more risk than say a 10 year old who doesn't get vaccinated against covid.

 

[vector2]

You said that I was minimizing numbers because I was looking at just percentages, and your point seemed to be that the raw number was still large, even though it was a small percent, therefore it mustn't be minimized. There are "large" numbers of people getting covid post-vaccination, but that certainly doesn't invalidate the effectiveness of the vaccine because of the small PERCENTAGE of people that are having breakthrough cases. Call it what you want, but its the exact logic you used, in reverse, and it just goes to show you how weak your logic was.

There exists a small absolute number of pediatric hospital beds in relation to the absolute number of [regular pediatric pts + pediatric covid pts] requiring hospitalization.

If you get any denser a black hole is going to form.

 

[greatnt249]

You said that I was minimizing numbers because I was looking at just percentages, and your point seemed to be that the raw number was still large, even though it was a small percent, therefore it mustn't be minimized. There are "large" numbers of people getting covid post-vaccination, but that certainly doesn't invalidate the effectiveness of the vaccine because of the small PERCENTAGE of people that are having breakthrough cases. Call it what you want, but its the exact logic you used, in reverse, and it just goes to show you how weak your logic was.

You might want to get your legs professionally checked after those rather large leaps in logic you just made. You think your logic is flawless, but that's a result of "the eyes not being able to see what the mind doesn't know." Who are the overwhelming majority of patients hospitalized with COVID? The unvaccinated. Hospitalized patients with COVID tend to, get this, remain hospitalized for a long time. It doesn't really matter if people are getting breakthrough infections from COVID even if they are vaccinated; overwhelming data suggests that even with breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, they, by far, are not the ones winding up in the hospital, on a ventilator, being shipped off to LTACHs trached/PEGed, or in the morgue. The more people that get vaccinated, the more likely the COVID pandemic is going to resolve, or, at worst, become another common respiratory infection with morbidity similar to the common cold.

Let me ask you this...how are the unvaccinated benefitting society in this pandemic? Do me a favor and spare me the Gestapo comparison, it's a legitimate question and I won't address your response if all I get is a slippery slope argument. Being vaccinated provides a benefit to the individual and, ostensibly society...what is the moral imperative for the unvaccinated individual? Just because you don't see a tangible benefit to yourself doesn't mean there isn't a tangible benefit. Yes, I know you've been vaccinated, but you've been championing the argument against mandates the entirety of the time you've been in this thread, so if you're going to play Devil's advocate, I'd really like to hear your reasoning as to why the general population can't come to the reasonable conclusion that getting vaccinated is just the right thing to do.

 

[greatnt249]

See, you make a comment like this boldly like it actually means something or sets up practical guidelines about how a society full of people with rights should function, however, your statement lacks any meaningful criteria to define what it means to "impact or infringe on the safety or rights of others". If an individual's action results in a risk of death/illness to nearby members of society at the rate of 1 out 10 people, that person is absolutely infringing on the safety of others and action must be taken to stop that person. If a persons actions (or inactions) increase the surrounding communities chance of death/illness by 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000, it must be looked at differently than the action that causes a 10% risk to the nearby community. I think preventing harm to 1 out of 10 people is probably worth infringing on an individuals rights to some degree. I don't believe that preventing potential harm (that could also be influenced by other confounding factors) to the community at a rate of 1 in 10,000 or more is not worth removing individual liberties or autonomy over medical decision. Heck, we have states where you can still legally talk on a cell phone while driving. And I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I'd bet a pretty penny that those people are putting the general public at more risk than say a 10 year old who doesn't get vaccinated against covid.

So, you're saying your definition is totally arbitrary...got it.

 

[Matty44]

Nope, it was definitely a strawman. Saying you don’t want to take a safe vaccine solely because you deem your (or your family’s) individual risk to be quite low is selfish, especially when the societal effects of delaying herd immunity are so devastating to so many people including other children. Just because someone points out to you that we (including our children) are all in this together doesn’t make that person a Nazi. Hope that helps.

As for your “6,000 breakthrough infections in NY” analogy….what you’re missing is that the number of overall pediatric covid hospitalizations is similar to those 6,000…..except in this example there’s only say 5,000 pediatric beds. Ergo, it doesn’t matter if 6,000 is only 0.05% of a larger number. There’s only 5,000 beds. Which is a full-blown pediatric healthcare infrastructure crisis. Is that simple enough for you, or do I need to find an even simpler way to explain it?

First off, I never called anyone a nazi. Second, please show me the 1,000 kids that aren't getting care right now. Someone linked one article where someone had to go to a hospital 150 miles away (I believe). That's definitely not ideal. Agreed. We had a delta spike amongst children when school got back in session and it seems to be waning in many parts of the country already, and that seems to mirror what's happened in many other countries. Not all, but a lot. I won't be surprised if the hospital volume goes down over the next month or two with out much change in overall vaccination rates.

 

[vector2]

First off, I never called anyone a nazi. Second, please show me the 1,000 kids that aren't getting care right now. Someone linked one article where someone had to go to a hospital 150 miles away (I believe). That's definitely not ideal. Agreed. We had a delta spike amongst children when school got back in session and it seems to be waning in many parts of the country already, and that seems to mirror what's happened in many other countries. Not all, but a lot. I won't be surprised if the hospital volume goes down over the next month or two with out much change in overall vaccination rates.

Classic Matty. "I think what you said sounds like a Nazi....but I didn't call you a Nazi." Lol, you think everyone here is incapable of reading between the lines? There's a reason the other poster had to say he's not going to respond to any Gestapo comparison slippery slopes.

So, first it was show you evidence that anyone's care was being affected so you didn't have to take the word of an "activist" judge who, with your tinfoil hat on, you presumed could or would possibly lie on TV about there being no PICU beds in DFW or 19 surrounding counties. But someone posted an article with evidence about a kid unable to be cared for. And then after that you were told that over 200 children's hospitals are pleading with the administation for help saying they were overwhelmed. But now the shifting goalpost is proof for a totally arbitrary number of hypothetical kids that I was merely using to state that capacity was most definitely exceeded in many places? Something tells me there's no number of kids being denied care or not seeking care due to wait times that would sway you.

And I'm glad you're so optimistic about the delta wave being the last wave with only a 56% vaccinated rate in this country. Very smart on your part. Cause there definitely weren't 3 other waves before this one which a whole bunch of people also thought were the last ones.

 

[greatnt249]

First off, I never called anyone a nazi.

No, but you did heavily imply that consideration of doing something like vaccination for the greater good of society was dangerously close to Nazi ideology, which demonstrated a false equivalency/slippery slope/strawman and invoked Godwin's law in one fell swoop.

 

[vector2]

From August:

---
"Nearly 1,600 kids with Covid-19 were hospitalized last week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — a new seven-day record and a 27 percent increase from the week before. Tennessee’s health commissioner expects the state’s children’s hospitals to be full by the week’s end. Louisiana reached that point more than a week ago. And Arkansas’ only children’s hospital has just two ICU beds remaining.
...
“We’ve got problems pretty uniformly everywhere,” said Mark Wietecha, CEO of the Children’s Hospital Association. “Most of our children's hospital intensive care units, if they're not near capacity, they're at capacity. We have kids in the emergency department on gurneys
...
We’re crowded in New York, we're crowded in Chicago, we’re crowded in Denver, Los Angeles, Houston, Texas, Miami. You can go right around the horn,” Wietecha said. “They are full, every bed, and we normally don't have that in August.”
---
Patients at Children’s of Mississippi hospital in Jackson often have to wait hours in the emergency room for a bed to clear because the facility has been slammed with RSV and coronavirus cases. In recent days, the hospital has had between 13 and 16 kids with Covid admitted at any one time — about twice the number it saw during January’s peak, said pediatrics chair Mary Taylor.

She said people are wrong to assume that Delta isn’t a threat to children, especially if they are in crowded schools without masks.
---

Children’s hospitals are swamped with Covid patients — and it may only get worse

Nearly 1,600 kids with Covid-19 were hospitalized last week, according to the CDC — a new seven-day record and a 27 percent increase from the week before.

www.google.com

 

[Leon'sMom]

If a shortage of hospital beds is interfering with patient care, why isn’t Biden working on a plan to have field hospitals set up or USS Comfort available to help out? If a problem exists, as a leader he should be looking into real ways to alleviate it.

Instead he’s fumbling around in his demented state bungling every domestic and foreign policy, including the recent influx of 12,000+ unvaccinated Haitian illegals at the southern border. I haven’t heard one peep of concern from any of you Biden voters about that. Why not? That wasn’t a responsible public health decision and will add further burden to an already strained system. And a second caravan is on the way. Biden’s incompetence really is breathtaking.

 

[chessknt]

That one is a wee bit over my personal line. Just as what I posted above is over the line for many others.

There is rationing happening right now it is just a first come first serve basis. Cardiac (actually make that all) surgery has stopped where I am and community transfers are being rejected and dieing as a result. My entire icu is all unvaccinated covid patients. Not a single critically ill non covid patient and haven’t seen one in over 2 weeks. Where are these people?

Inaction and allowing this to continue is tacit acceptance that the unvaccinated have priority over the vaccinated because they sit in the icu for weeks.

 

[nimbus]

If a shortage of hospital beds is interfering with patient care, why isn’t Biden working on a plan to have field hospitals set up or USS Comfort available to help out? If a problem exists, as a leader he should be looking into real ways to alleviate it.

Instead he’s fumbling around in his demented state bungling every domestic and foreign policy, including the recent influx of 12,000+ unvaccinated Haitian illegals at the southern border. I haven’t heard one peep of concern from any of you Biden voters about that. Why not? That wasn’t a responsible public health decision and will add further burden to an already strained system. And a second caravan is on the way. Biden’s incompetence really is breathtaking.

We’ve had 100,000-200,000 new cases per day for the past 2 months. 12,000 Haitians aren’t the problem. 130,000,000 unvaxxed native born idiots are. Also it’s much cheaper and easier to give a shot in the arm and pass out masks than it is to build new hospitals or navigate the USS Comfort to Coeur D’alene, Idaho. 90%+ of the current hospitalizations are preventable.

 

[Airway]

Also the uss comfort and mercy aren't really set up to take care of COVID or any airborne disease. @Leon'sMom

Also something something demented biden blah blah.

 

[Matty44]

So, you're saying your definition is totally arbitrary...got it.

My definition is based on what I think are reasonable amounts of risk. You seemed to state that people need to get vaccinated if they pose ANY risk to the health and safety of the community. Or do you have some kind of other way of defining what amount of risk one must pose to the community before the government can mandate their behavior? Cause again, you put no framework around what defines how much risk to the community is or isn’t acceptable? I tried to and you just attack it as arbitrary. Or do you truly believe that if an individuals actions pose ANY amount of risk to the community than those actions are unacceptable and the government should step in and mandate behavior?

 

[Matty44]

You might want to get your legs professionally checked after those rather large leaps in logic you just made. You think your logic is flawless, but that's a result of "the eyes not being able to see what the mind doesn't know." Who are the overwhelming majority of patients hospitalized with COVID? The unvaccinated. Hospitalized patients with COVID tend to, get this, remain hospitalized for a long time. It doesn't really matter if people are getting breakthrough infections from COVID even if they are vaccinated; overwhelming data suggests that even with breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, they, by far, are not the ones winding up in the hospital, on a ventilator, being shipped off to LTACHs trached/PEGed, or in the morgue. The more people that get vaccinated, the more likely the COVID pandemic is going to resolve, or, at worst, become another common respiratory infection with morbidity similar to the common cold.

What’s your point? I don’t think I’ve said anything to the contrary and I’m fully aware that unvaccinated pts do worse than unvaccinated…that’s why I’m vaccinated.

Let me ask you this...how are the unvaccinated benefitting society in this pandemic? Do me a favor and spare me the Gestapo comparison, it's a legitimate question and I won't address your response if all I get is a slippery slope argument. Being vaccinated provides a benefit to the individual and, ostensibly society...what is the moral imperative for the unvaccinated individual? Just because you don't see a tangible benefit to yourself doesn't mean there isn't a tangible benefit. Yes, I know you've been vaccinated, but you've been championing the argument against mandates the entirety of the time you've been in this thread, so if you're going to play Devil's advocate, I'd really like to hear your reasoning as to why the general population can't come to the reasonable conclusion that getting vaccinated is just the right thing to do.

Are you really not understanding my point after all this? I don’t know how else to state and restate what I’m trying to say. I never said being unvaccinated benefits society in any way. I never said I don’t see a tangible benefit to being vaccinated, just the opposite. If one doesn’t see the vaccine as beneficial to themselves, rightly or wrongly, after assessing the data and their own level of risk, that’s up to them. So in the framework, that person is not providing a benefit to themselves and society, but only to society. That person views it as not beneficial to themselves, hence their reluctance to get vaccinated. The general population can come to any conclusion they want, but that doesn’t mean every individual will agree with their consensus. And as much as that irks you that someone doesn’t think it’s a good idea to get vaccinated, I believe that’s their prerogative.

I have a 40 something year old friend who ain’t the most healthy person in the world. I tried to convince him to get vaccinated and explained the risks and benefits the best I could, but in the end I understand it’s his choice, and I don’t feel any more or less fearful for myself cause of his choice, just sad for him should he get a bad case of covid.

 

[doctalaughs]

My definition is based on what I think are reasonable amounts of risk. You seemed to state that people need to get vaccinated if they pose ANY risk to the health and safety of the community. Or do you have some kind of other way of defining what amount of risk one must pose to the community before the government can mandate their behavior? Cause again, you put no framework around what defines how much risk to the community is or isn’t acceptable? I tried to and you just attack it as arbitrary. Or do you truly believe that if an individuals actions pose ANY amount of risk to the community than those actions are unacceptable and the government should step in and mandate behavior?

The problem is that adding a small risk individually times 130 million people equates to big risk to society.

If 1 person in a city starts a bonfire in their backyard cause they like the light, no big deal. If half of all people do so, pretty much kills the air quality for everyone and maybe those with lung issues die.

Same concept here. What happened to patriotism and helping the country out? If half the population wasn’t selfish, a mandate wouldn’t be necessary! Unfortunately, it really is because “strongly suggesting” is not working.

 

[vector2]

My definition is based on what I think are reasonable amounts of risk. You seemed to state that people need to get vaccinated if they pose ANY risk to the health and safety of the community. Or do you have some kind of other way of defining what amount of risk one must pose to the community before the government can mandate their behavior? Cause again, you put no framework around what defines how much risk to the community is or isn’t acceptable? I tried to and you just attack it as arbitrary. Or do you truly believe that if an individuals actions pose ANY amount of risk to the community than those actions are unacceptable and the government should step in and mandate behavior?

We can actually define the societal risk in a much more tangible way:

"
Whether we’re talking about R0 or Re, the important threshold is 1. Anything over 1 will mean the outbreak that will grow, so a major goal of public health is to identify when a virus has an Re or R0 greater than 1—and intervene until the Re is less than 1. By examining the R0, and how it’s changed recently, we can figure out what strategies are worth focusing on in response to the new variant in order to bring down the Re.

The original nonvariant COVID-19 virus had an R0 of about 3, and we know from randomized controlled trials that the mRNA vaccines are about 95 percent effective at preventing severe death from the nonvariant virus. Now, a little math to get to the Re: We can estimate the Re in a given place and time by multiplying R0 by the proportion of the population that is currently susceptible to the disease (or 1 minus the proportion of the population that is fully immune to disease, say from vaccination). In mathematical notation, this is Re = R0(1-x*v). In this simplified equation, x*v represents the population that is immune: X is the percent of people who are fully vaccinated, and v is the vaccine’s effectiveness.

In a perfect world, we’d get the Re down by vaccinating everyone. If everyone in the U.S. had been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, we would expect that only 5 percent of people would remain susceptible to the virus. Putting those numbers together, if everybody received vaccines that are 95 percent effective, the Re for nonvariant COVID would be very much lower than 1. (If you do the math: 3*0.05 = 0.15.) That’s really good! Enough that the disease would, in this hypothetical, eventually disappear.""

If delta has an r0 of about ~5, we need 90% of the population vaccinated with a 90% effective vaccine to bring the Re under 1.

 

[Guillemot]

Classic Matty. "I think what you said sounds like a Nazi....but I didn't call you a Nazi." Lol, you think everyone here is incapable of reading between the lines? There's a reason the other poster had to say he's not going to respond to any Gestapo comparison slippery slopes.

So, first it was show you evidence that anyone's care was being affected so you didn't have to take the word of an "activist" judge who, with your tinfoil hat on, you presumed could or would possibly lie on TV about there being no PICU beds in DFW or 19 surrounding counties. But someone posted an article with evidence about a kid unable to be cared for. And then after that you were told that over 200 children's hospitals are pleading with the administation for help saying they were overwhelmed. But now the shifting goalpost is proof for a totally arbitrary number of hypothetical kids that I was merely using to state that capacity was most definitely exceeded in many places? Something tells me there's no number of kids being denied care or not seeking care due to wait times that would sway you.

And I'm glad you're so optimistic about the delta wave being the last wave with only a 56% vaccinated rate in this country. Very smart on your part. Cause there definitely weren't 3 other waves before this one which a whole bunch of people also thought were the last ones.

You seem to have an indefatigable source of energy when it comes to arguing with idiots.

 

[greatnt249]

Or do you have some kind of other way of defining what amount of risk one must pose to the community before the government can mandate their behavior? Cause again, you put no framework around what defines how much risk to the community is or isn’t acceptable?

I don't really have to put a framework around it, because population health experts already have. You make it sound like the United States population is floundering about in unfiltered vaccine and COVID data having to draw their own conclusions as to what to do. The data is pretty clear and rather robust, much more so than a lot of the medicine we practice. So, it's not really a matter of opinion regarding personal risk as to what to do (see again my comments about humans being terrible at risk assessment); the data is right there for everyone to see. You can't really have a personal opinion regarding data; you either come to the correct conclusion or don't.

But that's not really the issue, is it? One of the major issues, in my OPINION, is that Americans are hard-wired to react to and treat medical problems as they occur as opposed to taking preventive measures to stave issues off early on. Why? Because if COVID was actually nipped in the bud when it first started, there would be a lot of outcrying about how world leaders and the scientific community made a big deal out of "nothing." A sizeable portion of the population doesn't view vaccines as "fixing" a problem. They would feel the same as they did the day before they got the jab, so they see it as assuming all the risk (no matter how tiny it may be) for very little personal reward, or if you wanted to reframe it even further, "what's the point if I still might get sick anyway?" It's the same mentality we see with other pervasive health problems; why take aspirin, statins, and modify our lifestyles when we could just treat the MI when it occurs with a stent? Ain't medical technology grand?

Personally, I feel the argument against lost liberties is somewhat hollow...why? Because we have ALREADY LOST liberties because of the pandemic itself and the fact that it is still ongoing. I see getting vaccinated as perhaps the easiest way to get the liberties we lost BACK, because if we can make the pandemic go away or at the very least render it to the point where it is no longer a public health crisis, we wouldn't need all these other restrictions that have since resulted.

But, you do you (in the collective sense). Again, I know you have already gotten the vaccine. However, the fact that a vaccine even exists is a marvel of modern medicine in and of itself, let alone the efficacy and sheer amount of safety data we have regarding the vaccine to this point. But, because enough people have decided that getting the vaccine is "someone else's problem," this mentality highlights the very real problem of "diffusion of responsibility" in this country.

 

[greatnt249]

If a shortage of hospital beds is interfering with patient care, why isn’t Biden working on a plan to have field hospitals set up or USS Comfort available to help out? If a problem exists, as a leader he should be looking into real ways to alleviate it.

Instead he’s fumbling around in his demented state bungling every domestic and foreign policy, including the recent influx of 12,000+ unvaccinated Haitian illegals at the southern border. I haven’t heard one peep of concern from any of you Biden voters about that. Why not? That wasn’t a responsible public health decision and will add further burden to an already strained system. And a second caravan is on the way. Biden’s incompetence really is breathtaking.

Case in point of the "reacting/fixing" mentality toward American healthcare rather than taking preventative measures.

Government research/funding gave us the vaccine that the general public cried out for, and now that it's widely available (and incredibly effective as well as safe under perhaps the most heavy medical scrutiny I have seen given to a medical therapy in my career), people throw up their hands and say "oh, I didn't think they meant that I had to get it...I'm sure enough other people will get it to make this all go away." It's an easy thing to say as an individual when you're hiding in a crowd of 330,000,000 people. But, much like voting, even if you feel like you're not making a difference by getting vaccinated, I can assure you that you are.

 

[pgg]

a shortage of hospital beds is interfering with patient care, why isn’t Biden working on a plan to have field hospitals set up or USS Comfort available to help out? If a problem exists, as a leader he should be looking into real ways to alleviate it.

Are you serious? There are three vaccines. Masks work. Social distancing is helpful.

The problem isn't that Biden is sitting on his thumb not "looking into real ways to alleviate it" - the problem is that your ilk won't take any of those trivially easy steps[1] to actually end this pandemic. Meanwhile they're deliberately spiking the wheel screeching bull**** about ivermectin and essential oils and Sino-Fauci bioweapon conspiracy theories.

I'm reminded of the old cartoon of the person who drowned while waiting for God to hold back a flood, and when he asks God why he didn't help, he says You idiot, I sent two boats and a helicopter.

Also, to your specific suggestion of using the Comfort hospital ship for covid relief, we did that during the first wave in New York. It was largely ineffective and although the PR was good, in the end it just drained staff from other hospitals that needed them. The medical care shortage is less facilities and stuff than it is qualified people.


[1] granted, social distancing has societal costs and has become unsustainable.

 

[Matty44]

I don't really have to put a framework around it, because population health experts already have. You make it sound like the United States population is floundering about in unfiltered vaccine and COVID data having to draw their own conclusions as to what to do. The data is pretty clear and rather robust, much more so than a lot of the medicine we practice. So, it's not really a matter of opinion regarding personal risk as to what to do (see again my comments about humans being terrible at risk assessment); the data is right there for everyone to see. You can't really have a personal opinion regarding data; you either come to the correct conclusion or don't.

But that's not really the issue, is it? One of the major issues, in my OPINION, is that Americans are hard-wired to react to and treat medical problems as they occur as opposed to taking preventive measures to stave issues off early on. Why? Because if COVID was actually nipped in the bud when it first started, there would be a lot of outcrying about how world leaders and the scientific community made a big deal out of "nothing." A sizeable portion of the population doesn't view vaccines as "fixing" a problem. They would feel the same as they did the day before they got the jab, so they see it as assuming all the risk (no matter how tiny it may be) for very little personal reward, or if you wanted to reframe it even further, "what's the point if I still might get sick anyway?" It's the same mentality we see with other pervasive health problems; why take aspirin, statins, and modify our lifestyles when we could just treat the MI when it occurs with a stent? Ain't medical technology grand?

Personally, I feel the argument against lost liberties is somewhat hollow...why? Because we have ALREADY LOST liberties because of the pandemic itself and the fact that it is still ongoing. I see getting vaccinated as perhaps the easiest way to get the liberties we lost BACK, because if we can make the pandemic go away or at the very least render it to the point where it is no longer a public health crisis, we wouldn't need all these other restrictions that have since resulted.

But, you do you (in the collective sense). Again, I know you have already gotten the vaccine. However, the fact that a vaccine even exists is a marvel of modern medicine in and of itself, let alone the efficacy and sheer amount of safety data we have regarding the vaccine to this point. But, because enough people have decided that getting the vaccine is "someone else's problem," this mentality highlights the very real problem of "diffusion of responsibility" in this country.

I agree with most everything you said here, except that you DO get an opinion with what kind of risk you want to accept based on data. I don’t want to live in a country where people don’t get to choose their own level of risk tolerance with activities they choose to take part in or what kind of medical care the seek or don’t seek. And while it’s wholly clear to me and most every sane person that it’s a bad risk assessment for an adult not to get the vaccine, I still hold firm that it’s not unreasonable for someone to decide that they might not want to vaccinate their four year old quite yet, and that it’s totally their right to make that decision and not be pressured into it by the federal government.

 

[greatnt249]

Are you serious? There are three vaccines. Masks work. Social distancing is helpful.

The problem isn't that Biden is sitting on his thumb not "looking into real ways to alleviate it" - the problem is that your ilk won't take any of those trivially easy steps[1] to actually end this pandemic. Meanwhile they're deliberately spiking the wheel screeching bull**** about ivermectin and essential oils and Sino-Fauci bioweapon conspiracy theories.

I'm reminded of the old cartoon of the person who drowned while waiting for God to hold back a flood, and when he asks God why he didn't help, he says You idiot, I sent two boats and a helicopter.

Also, to your specific suggestion of using the Comfort hospital ship for covid relief, we did that during the first wave in New York. It was largely ineffective and although the PR was good, in the end it just drained staff from other hospitals that needed them. The medical care shortage is less facilities and stuff than it is qualified people.


[1] granted, social distancing has societal costs and has become unsustainable.

If a shortage of hospital beds is interfering with patient care, why isn’t Biden working on a plan to have field hospitals set up or USS Comfort available to help out? If a problem exists, as a leader he should be looking into real ways to alleviate it.

Instead he’s fumbling around in his demented state bungling every domestic and foreign policy, including the recent influx of 12,000+ unvaccinated Haitian illegals at the southern border. I haven’t heard one peep of concern from any of you Biden voters about that. Why not? That wasn’t a responsible public health decision and will add further burden to an already strained system. And a second caravan is on the way. Biden’s incompetence really is breathtaking.

"Why isn't the government doing something to fix COVID?"

"Three vaccines now exist that have a good safety data profile and perform better than expected and are also widely available."

...

"Why isn't the government doing something else to fix COVID?"

I don't get the argument that the government is wrong about mandating vaccines, but then state that it's the government's responsibility to clean up a mess that we, without government intervention, didn't take the initiative to clean up ourselves or prevent in the first place. Classic "not my problem" mentality.

Believe it or not, maintaining personal freedoms and liberties requires work and effort on the part of society...if we're not willing to do it ourselves, then the government WILL step in, and you probably WON'T like their solution. Why? Because now you're asking a bunch of bureaucrats to take the helm so that you can sit back and complain that they didn't do the job you asked them to.

 

[greatnt249]

I agree with most everything you said here, except that you DO get an opinion with what kind of risk you want to accept based on data. I don’t want to live in a country where people don’t get to choose their own level of risk tolerance with activities they choose to take part in or what kind of medical care the seek or don’t seek. And while it’s wholly clear to me and most every sane person that it’s a bad risk assessment for an adult not to get the vaccine, I still hold firm that it’s not unreasonable for someone to decide that they might not want to vaccinate their four year old quite yet, and that it’s totally their right to make that decision and not be pressured into it by the federal government.

At what point would you be willing to vaccinate your 4 year-old? We vaccinate children against all sorts of diseases that they are very unlikely to get in modern times, yet they're still by and large required to go to school. There is, believe it or not, a tangible benefit to preventing diseases from happening in the first place as opposed to curing the outbreak when it does occur. Just because you can't see or feel the benefit now as an individual doesn't mean the benefit doesn't exist.

I also think we need to accurately frame the discussion of "mandates," because I think the term is being used somewhat misleadingly when it comes to how it impacts personal freedoms and liberties. The government is not forcing their way into peoples' homes and stabbing them in the arm with needles or throwing them in jail if they don't get vaccinated. THAT is most certainly an infringement of individual rights. No one's rights are actually being lost or violated here; essentially, the government is telling a select portion of society to put up or shut up. If you care that strongly about not getting the vaccine that you're willing to not work as a result, that's your prerogative. No one has a right to employment; yes, it would be in everyone's interest for everyone to be a productive member of society and be fairly compensated in return, but it is, quite simply, not a basic human right to have a job. And, when push comes to shove, so far it appears that "not taking the vaccine on principle" falls pretty far down the totem pole of principles worth upholding when money is at stake...I know, shocker.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Are you serious? There are three vaccines. Masks work. Social distancing is helpful.

The problem isn't that Biden is sitting on his thumb not "looking into real ways to alleviate it" - the problem is that your ilk won't take any of those trivially easy steps[1] to actually end this pandemic. Meanwhile they're deliberately spiking the wheel screeching bull**** about ivermectin and essential oils and Sino-Fauci bioweapon conspiracy theories.

I'm reminded of the old cartoon of the person who drowned while waiting for God to hold back a flood, and when he asks God why he didn't help, he says You idiot, I sent two boats and a helicopter.

Also, to your specific suggestion of using the Comfort hospital ship for covid relief, we did that during the first wave in New York. It was largely ineffective and although the PR was good, in the end it just drained staff from other hospitals that needed them. The medical care shortage is less facilities and stuff than it is qualified people.


[1] granted, social distancing has societal costs and has become unsustainable.

I am reading posts and articles about hospital resources being stretched too thin, to the point that sick are being turned away, transported far distances, or dying in triage. All I'm saying is: If a problem exists, then we should be looking at ALL ways to alleviate it. I'm a realist. I don't think you are ever going to convince a certain percentage of people to get the vaccine. Short of rounding them up and sending them off to re-education camps, tying them down, and forcing a needle into their arms, you're just not. And while a few posters here would probably be on board with such measures, I'm not and hopefully others are not either. It's not enough to sit here and rant about the selfish unvaccinated. If a shortage of resources exist, solutions need to be found now rather than later.

Medical resources come in the form of medical supplies/meds, beds, and personnel. I haven't read anything about critical shortages in supplies, although shortages of meds is a normal situation these days, and our reliance on foreign imports certainly doesn't help. That leaves beds and personnel. Some people above are pointing out a lack of beds. You point out the need for personnel. Well, either way, beds or personnel, proactive or reactionary steps can be taken.

When my state was hard hit early in the pandemic, steps were taken. It took a couple of days for the National Guard to set up a field hospital with a 100 bed capacity. A field hospital could be used for less acute, non-Covid (airborne restriction) patients. It wouldn't be ideal, but better than turning people away due to lack of beds. If personnel is the problem, then maybe set up (military) traveling groups that can pivot to hardest hit areas. NY Gov has spoken of doing this due to personnel shortages. Again, not ideal, but better than being critically under staffed. I've stated that vaccine mandates may negatively impact medical staffing, and most people shrug that off. One nurse takes care of dozens of patients. One nurse retained is one less nurse needed.

All I'm saying is we need a multi-pronged approach.

 

[nimbus]

One nurse takes care of dozens of patients. One nurse retained is one less nurse needed.

Dozens???? Have you ever been inside a hospital in real life?

 

[Matty44]

At what point would you be willing to vaccinate your 4 year-old? We vaccinate children against all sorts of diseases that they are very unlikely to get in modern times, yet they're still by and large required to go to school. There is, believe it or not, a tangible benefit to preventing diseases from happening in the first place as opposed to curing the outbreak when it does occur. Just because you can't see or feel the benefit now as an individual doesn't mean the benefit doesn't exist.

I also think we need to accurately frame the discussion of "mandates," because I think the term is being used somewhat misleadingly when it comes to how it impacts personal freedoms and liberties. The government is not forcing their way into peoples' homes and stabbing them in the arm with needles or throwing them in jail if they don't get vaccinated. THAT is most certainly an infringement of individual rights. No one's rights are actually being lost or violated here; essentially, the government is telling a select portion of society to put up or shut up. If you care that strongly about not getting the vaccine that you're willing to not work as a result, that's your prerogative. No one has a right to employment; yes, it would be in everyone's interest for everyone to be a productive member of society and be fairly compensated in return, but it is, quite simply, not a basic human right to have a job. And, when push comes to shove, so far it appears that "not taking the vaccine on principle" falls pretty far down the totem pole of principles worth upholding when money is at stake...I know, shocker.

I'm not sure, that's a very good question and one that I ponder often. Keep in mind that the vaccine isn't even approved yet in kids under 12. I know it's very safe in the adult population and presume it will be so in young kids as well, however, as I keep harping on, because the risk is so low to a young child, I don't see the urgency to get the shot the minute its approved for the population under 12. If the risk of getting seriously sick from covid was like 1 in 100 for young kids, I'd be first in line to get it the day it's approved, but its not, so I try and balance risk reward, both of which are very low in my mind.

It's also a very interesting question on when peoples freedoms and liberties are infringed upon. And yes, you're correct that no one is being held down and stabbed in the shoulder. However, if the government says you forfeit the right to attend school if you don't get the shot, that's affecting your kids ability to get an education. Just cause it's not a direct forced injection, its infringing on your ability to raise your child. What if the government said, OK, you don't have to get a shot, but you can't leave your house until you do. That's still not literally forcing the vaccine on you, but its a pretty strong mandate, and I think most would agree that your individual rights are being infringed upon.

 

[greatnt249]

I am reading posts and articles about hospital resources being stretched too thin, to the point that sick are being turned away, transported far distances, or dying in triage. All I'm saying is: If a problem exists, then we should be looking at ALL ways to alleviate it. I'm a realist. I don't think you are ever going to convince a certain percentage of people to get the vaccine. Short of rounding them up and sending them off to re-education camps, tying them down, and forcing a needle into their arms, you're just not. And while a few posters here would probably be on board with such measures, I'm not and hopefully others are not either. It's not enough to sit here and rant about the selfish unvaccinated. If a shortage of resources exist, solutions need to be found now rather than later.

Medical resources come in the form of medical supplies/meds, beds, and personnel. I haven't read anything about critical shortages in supplies, although shortages of meds is a normal situation these days, and our reliance on foreign imports certainly doesn't help. That leaves beds and personnel. Some people above are pointing out a lack of beds. You point out the need for personnel. Well, either way, beds or personnel, proactive or reactionary steps can be taken.

When my state was hard hit early in the pandemic, steps were taken. It took a couple of days for the National Guard to set up a field hospital with a 100 bed capacity. A field hospital could be used for less acute, non-Covid (airborne restriction) patients. It wouldn't be ideal, but better than turning people away due to lack of beds. If personnel is the problem, then maybe set up (military) traveling groups that can pivot to hardest hit areas. NY Gov has spoken of doing this due to personnel shortages. Again, not ideal, but better than being critically under staffed. I've stated that vaccine mandates may negatively impact medical staffing, and most people shrug that off. One nurse takes care of dozens of patients. One nurse retained is one less nurse needed.

All I'm saying is we need a multi-pronged approach.

This is a more reasonable approach to you in terms of manpower and resources than preventing the situation from happening to begin with with a currently-existing, widely available solution? If you are truly a realist, you would realize that what you're proposing "sounds" reasonable, but would, in fact, be a nightmare in terms of implementation. You can't just handwave highly-trained healthcare personnel into existence. You can't just handwave resources into existence. What blows my mind is how we didn't learn our lesson from the first COVID wave after seeing what happened in Washington and New York and, instead, just "hoped" that another wave like this wouldn't occur. Yet here we are, in arguably a worse situation than when this first started despite EVERYTHING we have learned so far during this pandemic and acting helpless like we couldn't have done something about it to mitigate it NOW. People keep talking about rights and liberties, but I hear a lot of those same people turning around and blaming the government for not "intervening *good* enough," which is about the last thing you'd want to ask the government to do if you care at all about your rights and liberties.

The vaccine isn't a failure just because it requires an additional booster. At the time it came out, there was no way of knowing if one would be necessary. Now we have data to suggest it may be necessary. What got lost in the mix was that a faulty assumption was made in terms of vaccine implementation; that when the vaccine came out, there would be enough interest up front and enough people would get vaccinated that it would put out the fire that is COVID quick enough that we wouldn't need to worry about boosters. Instead, what happened is there were way more hold-outs than anticipated in getting the vaccine to leave some smoldering embers in the firepit, and the fire roared back to life in the form of a more contagious variant. And now here we are asking ourselves "how could we not have enough firetrucks" instead of why haven't we fireproofed our homes.

 

[greatnt249]

I'm not sure, that's a very good question and one that I ponder often. Keep in mind that the vaccine isn't even approved yet in kids under 12. I know it's very safe in the adult population and presume it will be so in young kids as well, however, as I keep harping on, because the risk is so low to a young child, I don't see the urgency to get the shot the minute its approved for the population under 12. If the risk of getting seriously sick from covid was like 1 in 100 for young kids, I'd be first in line to get it the day it's approved, but its not, so I try and balance risk reward, both of which are very low in my mind.

It's also a very interesting question on when peoples freedoms and liberties are infringed upon. And yes, you're correct that no one is being held down and stabbed in the shoulder. However, if the government says you forfeit the right to attend school if you don't get the shot, that's affecting your kids ability to get an education. Just cause it's not a direct forced injection, its infringing on your ability to raise your child. What if the government said, OK, you don't have to get a shot, but you can't leave your house until you do. That's still not literally forcing the vaccine on you, but its a pretty strong mandate, and I think most would agree that your individual rights are being infringed upon.

1. School vaccine mandates have been around long before COVID.

2. What's worse, not being allowed to go to school because you aren't vaccinated, or not being allowed to go to school because schools have to be continually shut down with each new case/outbreak and quarantining of contacts?

3. The government hasn't forced you to stay at home if you aren't vaccinated.

4. What's more bothersome to you, a government vaccine mandate, or circumventing a mandate by claiming religious/other exemption when that a) religion doesn't actually forbid vaccination and/or b) that individual doesn't actually espouse those beliefs but only claims to do so? Because that's what's also happening in this country; not only are people taking a laissez-faire approach to a public health crisis, they're willingly and actively being fraudulent in doing so.

I also have to ask, why is a vaccine mandate the hill people are willing to die on? If people are this upset, then the fact that we still have to register for the Selective Service is really going to blow their minds. After all, the government could decide to reinstate the draft at any time.

 

[dhb]

What's the percentage of obese kids in PICU covid patients?

Anybody care to weight in on this?

 

[Leon'sMom]

This is a more reasonable approach to you in terms of manpower and resources than preventing the situation from happening to begin with with a currently-existing, widely available solution? If you are truly a realist, you would realize that what you're proposing "sounds" reasonable, but would, in fact, be a nightmare in terms of implementation. You can't just handwave highly-trained healthcare personnel into existence. You can't just handwave resources into existence. What blows my mind is how we didn't learn our lesson from the first COVID wave after seeing what happened in Washington and New York and, instead, just "hoped" that another wave like this wouldn't occur. Yet here we are, in arguably a worse situation than when this first started despite EVERYTHING we have learned so far during this pandemic and acting helpless like we couldn't have done something about it to mitigate it NOW. People keep talking about rights and liberties, but I hear a lot of those same people turning around and blaming the government for not "intervening *good* enough," which is about the last thing you'd want to ask the government to do if you care at all about your rights and liberties.

The vaccine isn't a failure just because it requires an additional booster. At the time it came out, there was no way of knowing if one would be necessary. Now we have data to suggest it may be necessary. What got lost in the mix was that a faulty assumption was made in terms of vaccine implementation; that when the vaccine came out, there would be enough interest up front and enough people would get vaccinated that it would put out the fire that is COVID quick enough that we wouldn't need to worry about boosters. Instead, what happened is there were way more hold-outs than anticipated in getting the vaccine to leave some smoldering embers in the firepit, and the fire roared back to life in the form of a more contagious variant. And now here we are asking ourselves "how could we not have enough firetrucks" instead of why haven't we fireproofed our homes.

I am saying it is ONE approach that can be taken to alleviate a shortage. Other than NY Gov talking about importing Filipino and/or Irish nurses, I haven't heard too many other people discussing how to alleviate personnel shortages.

I'm saying that my OPINION is that we are never going to reach acceptable herd immunity through voluntary or employment/school-mandated vaccinations. It is my OPINION that for many reasons (talked about or not talked about, logical or illogical, selfish or autonomous) the virus will continue to infect, to sicken, and to kill to one degree or another.

So, I ask YOU, what is YOUR personal solution to the current and future surges and resource shortages? What would YOU suggest we do in America?