Vaccine

dad4 said:
Most hospitals are happy to explain that 90-100 percent of their covid ICU patients are not vaccinated. The doctors are tired of it, too.

If you look at the ICU stats, it’s pretty clear that the crush of unvaccinated covid patients is creating health care shortages for other patients.

You can deny it, but that doesn‘t make it any less true.
Click to expand...
I suppose it is more PC than to point out most ICU patients also fall into one or more of these categories 1) obese 2) unhealthy eating habits. 3) insufficient exercise 4) drink too much alcohol or have drug dependency 5) practice risky sexual behavior. Sure, COVID is something new, but shouldn't we be pointing out all "controllable" causes of hospitalization if we are attempting to eliminate hospital bed shortages? Maybe we should produce and tweet statistics for all the obese people at the hospital and let them know their lifestyles aren't supported by science - many, many years of science - and they are taking hospital beds from others. In order for obese people to work, let's enforce a low-calorie, vegetarian diet (CDC approved, of course) until they reach a level where they are not obese. They can check in every 6 months to see if they need a "booster" diet to stay within range. I bet that would bring down hospital bed demand.
 
dad4 said:
Hospitals created those covid wards by taking resources away from other departments.

Covid patients didn't create a 50% increase in available nursing staff. They just created an increase in demand. The supply came by reallocating the people who are already trained.

When hospital administrators talk about delays in elective surgeries, do you think they are just making shit up?
Click to expand...
So your not going to even acknowledge my question, just ignore and double down.
 
Desert Hound said:
I note you conveniently ignore the points.

1) We do not know if there are any long terms issues with the vaccines. This statement is 100% correct. We started vaxxing people less than a year ago.
2) The next point was if we do not know long term affects of the vaccines, maybe we should not rush to mandate them. That is an entirely rational point
3) The other point made was that some people are in a high risk group. They should get vaxxed because of their risk factors. That is an entirely rational point.

Those are the 3 main points the person was talking about.

Which ones do you find offensive? Anti vax? Or anti science? And why?
Click to expand...

(1) Yes, we know with a high degree of certainty that there aren't long term issues. Vaccines have been rigorously vetted and one study after the next verifies it if you care to look. They have concluded they are safe except in incredibly rare and almost always mild circumstances that do not even remotely outweigh the risks, just like every other vaccine. And now that vaccines are FDA approved, 166 health systems have already reached the same conclusion and are mandating them, including such sharlatans as the Mayo Clinic, Duke Health, UPenn, USC Keck, UCLA, U Kentucky, UNC, U Alabama, U Chicago, U Louisville, U Maryland, U Utah, U Washington, and Yale, plus healthcare giants like Trinity, Sutter and Kaiser. And also crazy that children's hospitals of CO, CT and TX, plus numerous other local children's hospitals in Omaha, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Dayton, Fresno, and St. Jude's have deemed vaccines sufficiently safe and important enough to protect even the little kiddies whom you claim are impervious to Covid-19 and cannot transmit it to others. Weren't you the one saying we should listen to those on the front line? On the other hand, you believe an anonymous fake post presumably from a conspiracy theory website relying on Dr. Horse Paste.

(2) This is irrational. The government is not making you get vaccinated. A few state governments are requiring that certain of their employees and some healthcare providers get vaccinated, but that's it and you aren't one of them. And since when did an American "patriot" and "lover of freedom" like yourself start trying to dictate decisions that businesses can make about their employees? If you don't want to get vaccinated, go work somewhere that doesn't require a vaccination. Why can't an employer exercise their freedom to kick your butt out of their business for being dangerous and expensive to their staff? Why shouldn't an employer be able to decide they don't want to pay increased healthcare and workers' compensation costs and restructure their operations to accommodate a handful of idiots? I'd think you of all people would support a company's right to cut unnecessary costs. Businesses don't need more information to know how much idiot anti-vaxxers are costing them in increased healthcare and workers' comp costs, in protective equipment and other precautions that would otherwise be unnecessary, in missed work time and other increased costs. In healthcare contexts especially, they know how much idiot anti-vaxxers have clogged up their ERs and ICUs and are killing patients who need medical care for legitimate reasons, and not because they're dumbfuck anti-vaxxers. What businesses don't know, however, is which of their dumbfuck anti-vaxxer employees are "high risk" and will end up costing them a fortune, so they may as well just get rid of them all. Even better if it's a public employer, since it saves us taxpayer dollars, right? Plus, anti-vaxxers are troublemakers and generally shitty employees anyway, so good riddance. Right crush?

(3) Not exactly. Many people in high risk groups cannot get vaccinated. Many people are in high risk groups and don't know it. Some people in good health will still die of Covid. Many people will suffer or die because our healthcare system is clogged with dumbfuck anti-vaxxers.

How on earth do you claim to be on the side of science when you're posting an apparently fake anonymous fake manifesto by a fake doctor that relies on horse paste as a better solution to Covid than vaccines, especially when 166 health care systems and virtually every single expert in the field say you're full of shit?

I answered your questions. So who is the mystery doctor/author/war veteran/graduate of a big 10 school/former resident of a prestigious place/horse paste advocate? Who is this guy who says the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, Yale and 164 other healthcare systems are wrong?
 
GoldenGate said:
Yes, we know with a high degree of certainty that there aren't long term issues
Click to expand...
This right there tells you that no you don't know what you are talking about. If a vaxx has only been around for 10 months or so, we cannot possibly know if there are long term issues with it.

Right now they are looking at short term issues. And fortunately enough in the short term there doesn't appear to be much concern. However long term issues by definition take a few years or longer. Do we know the affects of giving vaccines to pregnant mothers and if it is safe for the kids? No. And countless other issues have not yet been studied long term.

GoldenGate said:
Weren't you the one saying we should listen to those on the front line? On the other hand, you believe an anonymous fake post presumably from a conspiracy theory website relying on Dr. Horse Paste.
Click to expand...

If you ask a doctor or scientist if we know the long term affects of the vaccine, nobody can tell you honestly if there will or will not be issues. Why? It takes years to determine that. Which is why vaccines develop over the course of years so they can test. Today in the short term there appears to be little issue with the vax which is a great thing. We don't know what the future holds however when we look back over years of data.

You seem to miss that obvious point. You cannot know the long term affects (if any) until we have years of data.

And for Dr Horse Paste. The guy writing wasn't endorsing the doctor in Idaho. He stated that in the past when issues arose or people started seeing something, the scientific course of action would be to investigate the claims rather than dismissing them outright. He wasn't defending the doc, etc. Just pointing out that when politics wasn't involved inquiry and research would be the preferred solution. In terms of the "horse paste" that medicine is also prescribed to humans all the time. I don't advocate going out and getting the vet version of the med in the least by the way. The press hyped the story and most failed to note the medicine is also regularly given to humans.

GoldenGate said:
This is irrational. The government is not making you get vaccinated.
Click to expand...

It isn't irrational in the least. We have many examples of gov entities mandating or talking about mandating vaccines. We have university systems doing it. We have parts of the federal government doing it. Private companies either doing it or considering it. Etc etc.

GoldenGate said:
A few state governments are requiring that certain of their employees and some healthcare providers get vaccinated, but that's it and you aren't one of them.
Click to expand...
It isn't a few.

"So far, there are 24 states that require vaccination for employees of various categories."

And as you look at news articles you see more and more talk about mandates. This isn't idle talk.


GoldenGate said:
Not exactly. Many people in high risk groups cannot get vaccinated. Many people are in high risk groups and don't know it. Some people in good health will still die of Covid. Many people will suffer or die because our healthcare system is clogged with dumbfuck anti-vaxxers.
Click to expand...
The people in the high risk categories have been vaccinated here and in other 1st world countries at very high rates. Which is why deaths have fallen dramatically.

---

One see's a lot of concern about getting kids vaccinated...hoping a vax is approved for them. And schools talking about mandating it once approved. Many colleges are doing this.

These age groups have no real risk of covid. And yet people want them vaxxed. We know they are not at risk. We don't know if there are any long term complications from the vax.

And no it was no manifesto. You simply failed failed to read an understand what he meant. Based on your post above you cannot distinguish between the simple terms short term (which right now looks good in terms of safety) vs long term which will take years to study. That was one of the key points made. We simply do not yet know if there will be anything concerning and so to mandate people take it is something that deserves reasoned discussion.

You seem to struggle with that concept and call that a manifesto by some kook.

GoldenGate said:
Why can't an employer exercise their freedom to kick your butt out of their business for being dangerous and expensive to their staff? Why shouldn't an employer be able to decide they don't want to pay increased healthcare and workers' compensation costs and restructure their operations to accommodate a handful of idiots? I'd think you of all people would support a company's right to cut unnecessary costs.
Click to expand...

Will this also apply to gays and AIDS? Do they get to determine that this group may incur higher costs? Or do we not allow biz to do that?

Does this apply to obese workers? They cost more in terms of insurance/costs? Or do we not allow that?

There are all kinds of things employers could do to "limit cost" by firing employees for as you say risky behavior. And yet we don't allow that do we. And if we looked at some of the examples above and many others, I lay money you would not advocate that. If you were consistent in your approach however you would have to. Right? I mean now you are making an argument that biz should be able to cut all kinds of employees if they cost more money....

Hey now you are making an argument against pre-existing condition and health care insurance through work as well based on what you wrote above. Under the ACA, employers cannot impose a waiting period for coverage of a pre-existing condition. So I guess you are advocating we should get rid of that provision? It would save a lot of insurance costs for business as well.

See where I am going here?

Anyway lets keep it simple. Start with learning the difference between short term and long term. Then try this one. Find an article that talks about the known LONG TERM side affects (if any) of these vaccines. That search will be in vain.

I have no issue with the vaccines personally. They have helped tremendously for the actual at risk population. I also think if a person wants to get vaxxed, by all means do it. I don't like where many are increasingly going...vax passports, mandates, etc.

That is where I have an issue.

If in a number of years we have long term data and know if there are bad side affects and which types of people are at risk, then that would be the point one could say let us make it mandatory. At that point for instance we could exclude people with certain health factors where the vaccine isn't a good idea. That however will take years to determine how it affects various groups. You missed that very obvious point while typing horse as fast as you could.
 
GoldenGate said:
(1) Yes, we know with a high degree of certainty that there aren't long term issues. Vaccines have been rigorously vetted and one study after the next verifies it if you care to look. They have concluded they are safe except in incredibly rare and almost always mild circumstances that do not even remotely outweigh the risks, just like every other vaccine. And now that vaccines are FDA approved, 166 health systems have already reached the same conclusion and are mandating them, including such sharlatans as the Mayo Clinic, Duke Health, UPenn, USC Keck, UCLA, U Kentucky, UNC, U Alabama, U Chicago, U Louisville, U Maryland, U Utah, U Washington, and Yale, plus healthcare giants like Trinity, Sutter and Kaiser. And also crazy that children's hospitals of CO, CT and TX, plus numerous other local children's hospitals in Omaha, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Dayton, Fresno, and St. Jude's have deemed vaccines sufficiently safe and important enough to protect even the little kiddies whom you claim are impervious to Covid-19 and cannot transmit it to others. Weren't you the one saying we should listen to those on the front line? On the other hand, you believe an anonymous fake post presumably from a conspiracy theory website relying on Dr. Horse Paste.

(2) This is irrational. The government is not making you get vaccinated. A few state governments are requiring that certain of their employees and some healthcare providers get vaccinated, but that's it and you aren't one of them. And since when did an American "patriot" and "lover of freedom" like yourself start trying to dictate decisions that businesses can make about their employees? If you don't want to get vaccinated, go work somewhere that doesn't require a vaccination. Why can't an employer exercise their freedom to kick your butt out of their business for being dangerous and expensive to their staff? Why shouldn't an employer be able to decide they don't want to pay increased healthcare and workers' compensation costs and restructure their operations to accommodate a handful of idiots? I'd think you of all people would support a company's right to cut unnecessary costs. Businesses don't need more information to know how much idiot anti-vaxxers are costing them in increased healthcare and workers' comp costs, in protective equipment and other precautions that would otherwise be unnecessary, in missed work time and other increased costs. In healthcare contexts especially, they know how much idiot anti-vaxxers have clogged up their ERs and ICUs and are killing patients who need medical care for legitimate reasons, and not because they're dumbfuck anti-vaxxers. What businesses don't know, however, is which of their dumbfuck anti-vaxxer employees are "high risk" and will end up costing them a fortune, so they may as well just get rid of them all. Even better if it's a public employer, since it saves us taxpayer dollars, right? Plus, anti-vaxxers are troublemakers and generally shitty employees anyway, so good riddance. Right crush?

(3) Not exactly. Many people in high risk groups cannot get vaccinated. Many people are in high risk groups and don't know it. Some people in good health will still die of Covid. Many people will suffer or die because our healthcare system is clogged with dumbfuck anti-vaxxers.

How on earth do you claim to be on the side of science when you're posting an apparently fake anonymous fake manifesto by a fake doctor that relies on horse paste as a better solution to Covid than vaccines, especially when 166 health care systems and virtually every single expert in the field say you're full of shit?

I answered your questions. So who is the mystery doctor/author/war veteran/graduate of a big 10 school/former resident of a prestigious place/horse paste advocate? Who is this guy who says the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, Yale and 164 other healthcare systems are wrong?
Click to expand...


1. Re the employers, there is a bit of question mark legally regarding those that can prove they have natural immunity from prior illness. There have been a few lawsuits from these people claiming they should be accorded medical exemption. None of them have been litigated fully as far as I'm aware but one of them did settle. The case is actually stronger against a public employer than a private one. The downside though, for people trying to force this exemption is they'll be put under the same standards as other people claiming medical exemption (such as more rigorous mask/distancing/testing requirements).

2. Anyone want to give odds on the likelihood of golden gate actually being EOTL? A lot of the same dialogue such as "dumbfuck" and "shitty". A lot of the same legal knowledge.

3. I'm more convinced than ever that team panic and team reality are both losing it by the sudden influx of the newcomers on team panic's end and the new urgency I'm seeing on team reality's end. Joe Biden is expected to give a speech later this week for how the federal govt is going to deal with COVID. It's supposedly influenced heavily by Fauci and the Gottlieb booster crowd (the same ones that purportedly caused the resignations at the FDA for pressuring the FDA on boosters). With the red states having basically adopted the English approach, I suspect this is going to crack both sides of the debate...we've been basically yelling at each other for the last 2 months since the 4th of July reopening proved a bust....I suspect we just both go our separate ways of dealing with this in different jurisdictions at this point (as California and Florida have shown) since both sides seemed to have just exhausted each other...most people are sheep and will go along with whatever the powers that be mandate for their applicable jurisdictions but they'll be a substantial group of naysayers on both ends. The only way this changes is if Newsom gets recalled but I don't think it's going to happen (as I said before....I'd bet $20...maybe now even $50...I wouldn't bet anymore) or if the virus somehow burns out after the current wave (which given its propensity to mutate I also don't think will happen).
 
Kicker4Life said:
So your not going to even acknowledge my question, just ignore and double down.
Click to expand...
Nope. I declined your offer to change the topic. We were still discussing your first question.

The topic was, as you asked:

How does one person's vaccination status impact another person's health?

The answer is that, when unvaccinated covid patients clog the ICU, hospitals delay care for everyone.

Now, are we clear that one person's vaccination status can, and does, impact other people?

Or do you claim that hospitals are not delaying other procedures in order to free up resources for unvaccinated covid patients?
 
dad4 said:
Nope. I declined your offer to change the topic. We were still discussing your first question.

The topic was, as you asked:

How does one person's vaccination status impact another person's health?

The answer is that, when unvaccinated covid patients clog the ICU, hospitals delay care for everyone.

Now, are we clear that one person's vaccination status can, and does, impact other people?

Or do you claim that hospitals are not delaying other procedures in order to free up resources for unvaccinated covid patients?
Click to expand...

I note your argument (which I think is valid) about hospital capacity only gets you so far....it doesn't help very much: 1) with the under 30 crowd which are far less prone to hospitalization, 2) for those who can prove they have prior natural immunity, or 3) in those areas with substantial hospital capacity that are not in danger of being overwhelmed particularly as immunity from vaccination/natural immunity rises.

It's a good argument, but it's not a slam dunk and doesn't get you all the way to we should mandate the vaccine for everyone.
 
Desert Hound said:
This right there tells you that no you don't know what you are talking about. If a vaxx has only been around for 10 months or so, we cannot possibly know if there are long term issues with it.

Right now they are looking at short term issues. And fortunately enough in the short term there doesn't appear to be much concern. However long term issues by definition take a few years or longer. Do we know the affects of giving vaccines to pregnant mothers and if it is safe for the kids? No. And countless other issues have not yet been studied long term.



If you ask a doctor or scientist if we know the long term affects of the vaccine, nobody can tell you honestly if there will or will not be issues. Why? It takes years to determine that. Which is why vaccines develop over the course of years so they can test. Today in the short term there appears to be little issue with the vax which is a great thing. We don't know what the future holds however when we look back over years of data.

You seem to miss that obvious point. You cannot know the long term affects (if any) until we have years of data.

And for Dr Horse Paste. The guy writing wasn't endorsing the doctor in Idaho. He stated that in the past when issues arose or people started seeing something, the scientific course of action would be to investigate the claims rather than dismissing them outright. He wasn't defending the doc, etc. Just pointing out that when politics wasn't involved inquiry and research would be the preferred solution. In terms of the "horse paste" that medicine is also prescribed to humans all the time. I don't advocate going out and getting the vet version of the med in the least by the way. The press hyped the story and most failed to note the medicine is also regularly given to humans.



It isn't irrational in the least. We have many examples of gov entities mandating or talking about mandating vaccines. We have university systems doing it. We have parts of the federal government doing it. Private companies either doing it or considering it. Etc etc.


It isn't a few.

"So far, there are 24 states that require vaccination for employees of various categories."

And as you look at news articles you see more and more talk about mandates. This isn't idle talk.



The people in the high risk categories have been vaccinated here and in other 1st world countries at very high rates. Which is why deaths have fallen dramatically.

---

One see's a lot of concern about getting kids vaccinated...hoping a vax is approved for them. And schools talking about mandating it once approved. Many colleges are doing this.

These age groups have no real risk of covid. And yet people want them vaxxed. We know they are not at risk. We don't know if there are any long term complications from the vax.

And no it was no manifesto. You simply failed failed to read an understand what he meant. Based on your post above you cannot distinguish between the simple terms short term (which right now looks good in terms of safety) vs long term which will take years to study. That was one of the key points made. We simply do not yet know if there will be anything concerning and so to mandate people take it is something that deserves reasoned discussion.

You seem to struggle with that concept and call that a manifesto by some kook.



Will this also apply to gays and AIDS? Do they get to determine that this group may incur higher costs? Or do we not allow biz to do that?

Does this apply to obese workers? They cost more in terms of insurance/costs? Or do we not allow that?

There are all kinds of things employers could do to "limit cost" by firing employees for as you say risky behavior. And yet we don't allow that do we. And if we looked at some of the examples above and many others, I lay money you would not advocate that. If you were consistent in your approach however you would have to. Right? I mean now you are making an argument that biz should be able to cut all kinds of employees if they cost more money....

Hey now you are making an argument against pre-existing condition and health care insurance through work as well based on what you wrote above. Under the ACA, employers cannot impose a waiting period for coverage of a pre-existing condition. So I guess you are advocating we should get rid of that provision? It would save a lot of insurance costs for business as well.

See where I am going here?

Anyway lets keep it simple. Start with learning the difference between short term and long term. Then try this one. Find an article that talks about the known LONG TERM side affects (if any) of these vaccines. That search will be in vain.

I have no issue with the vaccines personally. They have helped tremendously for the actual at risk population. I also think if a person wants to get vaxxed, by all means do it. I don't like where many are increasingly going...vax passports, mandates, etc.

That is where I have an issue.

If in a number of years we have long term data and know if there are bad side affects and which types of people are at risk, then that would be the point one could say let us make it mandatory. At that point for instance we could exclude people with certain health factors where the vaccine isn't a good idea. That however will take years to determine how it affects various groups. You missed that very obvious point while typing horse as fast as you could.
Click to expand...

In the time it took you to write that, you could have had a vaccination and waited out the precautionary period.
 
dad4 said:
Nope. I declined your offer to change the topic. We were still discussing your first question.

The topic was, as you asked:

How does one person's vaccination status impact another person's health?

The answer is that, when unvaccinated covid patients clog the ICU, hospitals delay care for everyone.

Now, are we clear that one person's vaccination status can, and does, impact other people?

Or do you claim that hospitals are not delaying other procedures in order to free up resources for unvaccinated covid patients?
Click to expand...
I’m clear that you have a theory and that’s about it.

I have a theory too, and that’s about it.

I have a feeling we are both right to an extent……
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top