Unemployed due to SCOTUS

[vector2]

Of course we were mindful of it. But there was not the narrative that we were dangerous to our patients like we have heard since this mandate issue arose.

Yeah, of course the narrative wasn't there at the time because there was no vaccine and a shortage of PPE.

And it’s even more ridiculous because in May we were told the disease stops with the vaccine because it prevented 95% of transmission. Now it’s widely accepted that those with the vaccine (and booster) can get Covid and transmit it as well. It likely lessens severity, but protection of those around us comes from being mindful of our behaviors rather than vaccine status.
Again, there is more acute risk to patients having providers being asked to return to work after 5 days with known disease.
I am not anti-vax by any means. I support those who want to get it, and I am hopeful that all of this will be over soon.

It doesn't *just* lessen the severity. As I posted earlier, if one is boosted then there is 70-75% protection against symptomatic infection with omicron (vs 30-40% with two shots). Lessening symptomatic infection means fewer worker shortages, and most likely (data pending) reduced transmission and/or fewer days where one is contagious.

But no one seems to bat an eye because the CDC changed its stance two days after Christmas.

Again, what planet are you on? There's hardly ever been as unified a pushback on something from both the right and left as there has been toward the CDC's arbitrary guidance.

[‘CDC Says’ Jokes Trend After New Covid-19 Isolation, Quarantine Guideline Changes]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nimbus]

 

[vector2]

Also, you guys know CMS has an exemption clause, right?

 

[vector2]

. The hypocrisy of allowing providers with NO PROTECTION against Covid to keep their jobs while firing those providers who have documented proof of infection/antibodies makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

This is an argument to mandate the booster for everyone, not to let some dingus with no/very little residual immunity from his April 2020 infection continue refusing the vaccine.

 

[Southpaw]

At my shop all you have to do is a "little white lie" on the religious exemption form and it is ALWAYS granted. The hypocrisy of allowing providers with NO PROTECTION against Covid to keep their jobs while firing those providers who have documented proof of infection/antibodies makes no scientific sense whatsoever. That is the price for living in a free society.

The "scammers" just lie on the form while those with conviction get fired.

You didn’t answer a single one of my questions. I imagine you understand the issues with natural immunity. They’re the issues I raised. It’s far easier to get vaccinated and move on with life, but of course the foxnews crowd want the liberty to freely infect others. Vaccine mandates have been around forever. Everyone posting in this thread provided a vaccine history when they went to college, med school, and starting working in the hospital. If they had missing vaccines they were required to get shots. No different now. Just more nonsense from the personal liberty freedom fighters (who used for be for the rights of private business but now that doesn’t fit the narrative so they switched it up).

 

[RadOncDoc21]

You didn’t answer a single one of my questions. I imagine you understand the issues with natural immunity. They’re the issues I raised. It’s far easier to get vaccinated and move on with life, but of course the foxnews crowd want the liberty to freely infect others. Vaccine mandates have been around forever. Everyone posting in this thread provided a vaccine history when they went to college, med school, and starting working in the hospital. If they had missing vaccines they were required to get shots. No different now. Just more nonsense from the personal liberty freedom fighters (who used for be for the rights of private business but now that doesn’t fit the narrative so they switched it up).

Funny how the same folks want freedom of choice for vaccine mandates (during a once in a lifetime pandemic) but against freedom of choice for women’s rights but hypocrisy isn’t surprising… I digress.

 

[deleted126335]

Funny how the same folks want freedom of choice for vaccine mandates (during a once in a lifetime pandemic) but against freedom of choice for women’s rights but hypocrisy isn’t surprising… I digress.

It's ok as long as you don't infect a pregnant woman. I mean her fetus.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

It's ok as long as you don't infect a pregnant woman. I mean her fetus.

Right who cares about infecting everyone else just as long as the fetus is protected!

 

[BLADEMDA]

For the die hard liberals out there the mandate only requires 2 shots but the scientific evidence shows it takes a booster shot to truly slow the spread of Omicron. So, even those who are legally "fully vaccinated" are not doing much to either avoid Omicron or stop its spread unless they wear a mask and social distance.

Hence, unless CMS requires 3 shots the requirement is political in nature. Plus, all it takes is for someone to simply apply for the religious exemption even when no real religious objection exists.

 

[DoctwoB]

So, a healthcare provider with proof of antobodies to Covid 19 and who has been sick with Delta as well as Omicron should be fired from their job? On what scientific basis should this person lose their job? SCOTUS rules 5-4 so the CMS mandate is in effect. If they had ruled 5-4 in the opposite way I seriously doubt any of you hardcore liberals would be agreeing with that verdict. There is no basis for forcing this vaccine on anyone against their will as Omicron is just as much a threat to every person. While I don't agree with a person's decision to not get vaccinated I believe that choice is their right.

The courts still need to rule on the those healthcare workers who get fired over this CMS mandate. I wouldn't bet against a conservative court ruling in favor of healthcare workers who can prove immunity to Covid 19 and documented evidence of infection. Those cases are coming and hospitals along with CMS could lose millions in lawsuits.

You act like a job is a god given right.

We can all lose our jobs for a million reasons. Poor peformance. Putting substances in our body (even legal ones) our employers don’t agree with. Not documenting properly. Not watching 5 million Fing hours of workplace harassment modules.

Getting a vaccine that protects us and our patients is a no brained to mandate compared to damn near everything else on the list and I will shed no tears for our science denying colleagues who find themselves out of a job.

 

[DoctwoB]

For the die hard liberals out there the mandate only requires 2 shots but the scientific evidence shows it takes a booster shot to truly slow the spread of Omicron. So, even those who are legally "fully vaccinated" are not doing much to either avoid Omicron or stop its spread unless they wear a mask and social distance.

Hence, unless CMS requires 3 shots the requirement is political in nature. Plus, all it takes is for someone to simply apply for the religious exemption even when no real religious objection exists.

You love to say “the science says” when you are flat out wrong.

Yes Omicron infects the vaccinated. But the vaccine does reduce infection rates significantly. A booster even more so. If you don’t get infected you can’t infect your patients. And even those who get breakthroughs are infectious for a shorter period of time. The vaccine dramatically reduces the probability of severe disease, and guess what? Most big healthcare systems are self insured, so you not getting vaxxed can affect their bottom line.

Why stop there? as a surgeon i demand the right to be able to infect my patients with hepB.

 

[2Fast2Des]

Um what the hell is a religious exemption? Can you even prove whatever your version of the pie in the sky guy with the beard actually exists and what he\she\it looks? Is there a verse in whatever book written by human beings from the word of that "being" that covid vaccines are exempt if you are a true follower? I mean really, why are we pandering to "religious" followers who use this as an excuse to get out of helping themselves and their fellow man. I mean don't the good books all preach this in some way? Why is the covid vaccine exempt but all the other childhood vaccines okay? Why do we give religion a huge pass on anything because it's "my religion"? My self proclaimed religion says I can roundhouse kick anyone, and not pay taxes either, but yet the government don't let me! What gives??

 

[pgg]

Funny how the same folks want freedom of choice for vaccine mandates (during a once in a lifetime pandemic) but against freedom of choice for women’s rights but hypocrisy isn’t surprising… I digress.

Whether you're for or against or indifferent to abortion, this is not a useful or honest way to characterize the anti position.

They think abortion is murder. They're not "anti-woman" or "anti-choice"... they think a fetus is a sentient human and an abortion is murder.

I think it's absurd to call a 12 week fetus with an undifferentiated cortex a sentient human, and am perfectly happy leaving it up to the woman, but they stop their analysis of the issue at "it's murder" and go no further.

 

[pgg]

Plus, all it takes is for someone to simply apply for the religious exemption even when no real religious objection exists.

I'm glad we agree that religious exemptions for vaccines are a farce and should be summarily dismissed.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Whether you're for or against or indifferent to abortion, this is not a useful or honest way to characterize the anti position.

They think abortion is murder. They're not "anti-woman" or "anti-choice"... they think a fetus is a sentient human and an abortion is murder.

I think it's absurd to call a 12 week fetus with an undifferentiated cortex a sentient human, and am perfectly happy leaving it up to the woman, but they stop their analysis of the issue at "it's murder" and go no further.

I can see this distinction but someone has to make a “choice” and limiting the woman’s decision in my opinion is by definition anti-choice.

 

[Blockit]

Whether you're for or against or indifferent to abortion, this is not a useful or honest way to characterize the anti position.

They think abortion is murder. They're not "anti-woman" or "anti-choice"... they think a fetus is a sentient human and an abortion is murder.

I think it's absurd to call a 12 week fetus with an undifferentiated cortex a sentient human, and am perfectly happy leaving it up to the woman, but they stop their analysis of the issue at "it's murder" and go no further.

These religious extremists are not “pro life“, they are “pro birth“. Their complete lack of support for any government funded child support services verifies this.

 

[ValentineD]

You didn’t scan it to your phone?

Perhaps my idealistic nature assumed everyone would get vaccinated and this Covid-19 business would be in the rear view mirror.

.

Where did u get your shots? They should have
A record and can make a new vaccine card for u

A chain pharmacy, I'm sure I can get another copy. It's fun to joke about though. Leaving all the insanity behind and becoming a potato farmer. Although I was in the staff office filling out some paperwork and they asked me for my vaccine dates. I just threw out some random (incorrect) dates and they took them down. Didn't ask to see any proof. Makes me wonder how easy it will be to fraudulently document vaccination status. Some hospitals certainly have the motivation to do so if they are having staffing issues.

 

[pgg]

These religious extremists are not “pro life“, they are “pro birth“. Their complete lack of support for any government funded child support services verifies this.

Again, I think this take is fundamentally wrong and it hurts the "pro-choice" movement because it pretends the antis want something that is incidental or tangential to their chief complaint.

They're not pro-birth. They're anti-murder. Full stop.

If it was legal to murder homeless people, how far would YOU go to oppose the right of suburban housewives to kill random bums? Would you argue on the internet? Lobby to make it illegal? Carry a sign at a protest? Take up arms and defend poorly housed people from soccer moms in their up-armored SUVs?

That is how they see their cause. They think they're defending helpless babies from would-be murderers.

Framing the discussion as a matter of choice is completely wrong. They're saying you shouldn't be allowed to choose to murder someone.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Again, I think this take is fundamentally wrong and it hurts the "pro-choice" movement because it pretends the antis want something that is incidental or tangential to their chief complaint.

They're not pro-birth. They're anti-murder. Full stop.

If it was legal to murder homeless people, how far would YOU go to oppose the right of suburban housewives to kill random bums? Would you argue on the internet? Lobby to make it illegal? Carry a sign at a protest? Take up arms and defend poorly housed people from soccer moms in their up-armored SUVs?

That is how they see their cause. They think they're defending helpless babies from would-be murderers.

Framing the discussion as a matter of choice is completely wrong. They're saying you shouldn't be allowed to choose to murder someone.

So why do they support the death penalty if it’s all about protecting life… let me guess, it’s an “innocent” life. Why choose to be the judge, jury, and executioner on one extreme but not the other.

If you’re pro-life, be pro-life!

 

[DoctwoB]

Again, I think this take is fundamentally wrong and it hurts the "pro-choice" movement because it pretends the antis want something that is incidental or tangential to their chief complaint.

They're not pro-birth. They're anti-murder. Full stop.

If it was legal to murder homeless people, how far would YOU go to oppose the right of suburban housewives to kill random bums? Would you argue on the internet? Lobby to make it illegal? Carry a sign at a protest? Take up arms and defend poorly housed people from soccer moms in their up-armored SUVs?

That is how they see their cause. They think they're defending helpless babies from would-be murderers.

Framing the discussion as a matter of choice is completely wrong. They're saying you shouldn't be allowed to choose to murder someone.

This is why trying to debate or reason with people on this issue is usually a complete failure.

Pro birthers start with the assumption that a fetus is a human being with a value and rights that approach that if a living person. This is a ridiculous assumption medically for a wide variety of reasons (undifferentiated cortex, dependence on mother, minimal brain activity, the list goes on). But if you can’t disabuse someone of that notion, then all arguments will go nowhere, as murdering a human being is a reasonable thing to be against even despite the effects on maternal bodily autonomy.

This doesn’t mean their position is a reasonable one. Far from it. If you start from an improvable (or provably wrong) firmly held assumption then you can justify anything you want. If you think a chicken is sentient and equally valuable as a person, you could justify murdering thousands of farmers to save millions of chickens. And so on. It just means that arguing is usually a lost cause. And if you are going to argue, it is the underlying assumption you have to attack.

 

[pgg]

So why do they support the death penalty if it’s all about protecting life… let me guess, it’s an “innocent” life. Why choose to be the judge, jury, and executioner on one extreme but not the other.

If you’re pro-life, be pro-life!

Yes, exactly, it's innocent life. You've seen the point.

Not all killing is murder. Executions aren't murder. Killing an enemy soldier in a war isn't murder. Killing in self-defense isn't murder.

And you've added yet another strawman to your argument: they aren't trying to be judge, jury, and executioner. (Except maybe the rare lunatic like Eric Rudolph.) They're lobbying for laws that would then be enforced by a judge, possibly a jury, possibly an executioner.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Yes, exactly, it's innocent life. You've seen the point.

Not all killing is murder. Executions aren't murder. Killing an enemy soldier in a war isn't murder. Killing in self-defense isn't murder.

And you've added yet another strawman to your argument: they aren't trying to be judge, jury, and executioner. (Except maybe the rare lunatic like Eric Rudolph.) They're lobbying for laws that would then be enforced by a judge, possibly a jury, possibly an executioner.

I’m still waiting to hear how pro-life can mean taking away life and how pro choice for the woman is still preserved.

Anti-vaxxers suddenly eager to be pro-choice

We live in unprecedented times. God, don’t you just love to hear that phrase?

www.dailyuw.com

Can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty? | CNN

Carol Costello says very few Americans are consistent in their attitudes toward abortion and the death penalty

www.cnn.com

 

[camkiss]

I had both Pfizer doses but got Delta. Was essentially asymptomatic. Then also got Omicron (very mild symptoms). I feel like I got “boosted” naturally and will likely not take a third vaccine dose any time soon. I don’t think there’s much science to support it if we continue to see breakthrough infections.

 

[IMGASMD]

I had both Pfizer doses but got Delta. Was essentially asymptomatic. Then also got Omicron (very mild symptoms). I feel like I got “boosted” naturally and will likely not take a third vaccine dose any time soon. I don’t think there’s much science to support it if we continue to see breakthrough infections.

Support “it”? What is it? Booster? Same vaccine?

You just also said, you got delta and still got Omicron. I don’t think the natural immunity worked well either.

If it becomes an annual event, like the flu, will you be more comfortable getting yearly COVID vaccine?

 

[camkiss]

Support “it”? What is it? Booster? Same vaccine?

You just also said, you got delta and still got Omicron. I don’t think the natural immunity worked well either.

If it becomes an annual event, like the flu, will you be more comfortable getting yearly COVID vaccine?

It being the booster. The vaccine worked as I had minimal symptoms both times- I’m not arguing against getting the vaccine. I’m saying there’s no reason (for me) to get a booster right now as I got a natural booster twice!
If COVID becomes endemic like the flu, I do think I would get an annual vaccine assuming I don’t continue to get each new variant every few months.

 

[pgg]

I’m still waiting to hear how pro-life can mean taking away life and how pro choice for the woman is still preserved.

You'll never hear it because you're choosing not to listen.

 

[chessknt]

It being the booster. The vaccine worked as I had minimal symptoms both times- I’m not arguing against getting the vaccine. I’m saying there’s no reason (for me) to get a booster right now as I got a natural booster twice!
If COVID becomes endemic like the flu, I do think I would get an annual vaccine assuming I don’t continue to get each new variant every few months.

Would you quit your job over it then blame scotus is the big question? Will you get it but let it plant this seed of hatred inside of you that will drive you to become a single issue voter for whatever party is anti vaccine?

 

[camkiss]

Would you quit your job over it then blame scotus is the big question? Will you get it but let it plant this seed of hatred inside of you that will drive you to become a single issue voter for whatever party is anti vaccine?

Nope

 

[caligas]

I actually lost my vaccine card. I think I remember flicking it into the backseat of the car onto a stack of paperwork but I haven't seen it since. Wonder if I'll get sacked.

Lost your V-card?

 

[Gern Blansten]

There are quite a few people on both sides who firmly believe that their way is the only way. My approach is that I am pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate.
If you believe that the vaccine is effective against serious illness (I do), then you are protected and what does it matter if your work colleague feels differently. I do not agree with them, but I will not be in favor of them losing their employment over it. I have protected myself and they have made their own medical choices.
It is a slippery slope to believe that you have the right to make medical decisions for others.
All we can do is share our opinion and try to sway others to agree. To demonize the other side such as we see when people rejoice when an adamant anti-COVID vax person dies of COVID is reprehensible, IMHO. The person that finds joy in the suffering of people who disagree with them has chosen a terrible way to live life.
We all hope that our patients will do things to keep themselves healthy, such as eating right, exercising, losing weight, not smoking, etc. But, at the end of the day, most of us still care for the patient even though much of their problems are completely self-inflicted.
This virus has turned many of us against our fellow humans, even against our own families. I think we should all do our best to take care of ourselves and do our best to assist others in the same. If someone chooses a different path for their own health, all we can do is wish them the best.

 

[chessknt]

There are quite a few people on both sides who firmly believe that their way is the only way. My approach is that I am pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate.
If you believe that the vaccine is effective against serious illness (I do), then you are protected and what does it matter if your work colleague feels differently. I do not agree with them, but I will not be in favor of them losing their employment over it. I have protected myself and they have made their own medical choices.
It is a slippery slope to believe that you have the right to make medical decisions for others.
All we can do is share our opinion and try to sway others to agree. To demonize the other side such as we see when people rejoice when an adamant anti-COVID vax person dies of COVID is reprehensible, IMHO. The person that finds joy in the suffering of people who disagree with them has chosen a terrible way to live life.
We all hope that our patients will do things to keep themselves healthy, such as eating right, exercising, losing weight, not smoking, etc. But, at the end of the day, most of us still care for the patient even though much of their problems are completely self-inflicted.
This virus has turned many of us against our fellow humans, even against our own families. I think we should all do our best to take care of ourselves and do our best to assist others in the same. If someone chooses a different path for their own health, all we can do is wish them the best.

This has been said ad nauseum but the decision to not vaccinate does not only impact oneself. You know that right?

 

[GassYous]

There are quite a few people on both sides who firmly believe that their way is the only way. My approach is that I am pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate.
If you believe that the vaccine is effective against serious illness (I do), then you are protected and what does it matter if your work colleague feels differently. I do not agree with them, but I will not be in favor of them losing their employment over it. I have protected myself and they have made their own medical choices.
It is a slippery slope to believe that you have the right to make medical decisions for others.
All we can do is share our opinion and try to sway others to agree. To demonize the other side such as we see when people rejoice when an adamant anti-COVID vax person dies of COVID is reprehensible, IMHO. The person that finds joy in the suffering of people who disagree with them has chosen a terrible way to live life.
We all hope that our patients will do things to keep themselves healthy, such as eating right, exercising, losing weight, not smoking, etc. But, at the end of the day, most of us still care for the patient even though much of their problems are completely self-inflicted.
This virus has turned many of us against our fellow humans, even against our own families. I think we should all do our best to take care of ourselves and do our best to assist others in the same. If someone chooses a different path for their own health, all we can do is wish them the best.

Yeah I wish all these covid positive antivaxers the best when they come into my or coughing with their abscess from skin popping while the insured patients that have been waiting for months to get surgery are canceled for lack of beds. My family really appreciates them, especially those who cannot get vaccinated.

 

[deleted875186]

There are quite a few people on both sides who firmly believe that their way is the only way. My approach is that I am pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate.
If you believe that the vaccine is effective against serious illness (I do), then you are protected and what does it matter if your work colleague feels differently. I do not agree with them, but I will not be in favor of them losing their employment over it. I have protected myself and they have made their own medical choices.
It is a slippery slope to believe that you have the right to make medical decisions for others.
All we can do is share our opinion and try to sway others to agree. To demonize the other side such as we see when people rejoice when an adamant anti-COVID vax person dies of COVID is reprehensible, IMHO. The person that finds joy in the suffering of people who disagree with them has chosen a terrible way to live life.
We all hope that our patients will do things to keep themselves healthy, such as eating right, exercising, losing weight, not smoking, etc. But, at the end of the day, most of us still care for the patient even though much of their problems are completely self-inflicted.
This virus has turned many of us against our fellow humans, even against our own families. I think we should all do our best to take care of ourselves and do our best to assist others in the same. If someone chooses a different path for their own health, all we can do is wish them the best.

I think we have given “free speech rights” to cooperations with citizens United. Why then should a company not be allowed to require vaccinations to protect its work force. Yoj cannot deny that unvaccinated people are hirer risk to go out sick from getting Covid.

 

[Southpaw]

There are quite a few people on both sides who firmly believe that their way is the only way. My approach is that I am pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate.
If you believe that the vaccine is effective against serious illness (I do), then you are protected and what does it matter if your work colleague feels differently. I do not agree with them, but I will not be in favor of them losing their employment over it. I have protected myself and they have made their own medical choices.
It is a slippery slope to believe that you have the right to make medical decisions for others.
All we can do is share our opinion and try to sway others to agree. To demonize the other side such as we see when people rejoice when an adamant anti-COVID vax person dies of COVID is reprehensible, IMHO. The person that finds joy in the suffering of people who disagree with them has chosen a terrible way to live life.
We all hope that our patients will do things to keep themselves healthy, such as eating right, exercising, losing weight, not smoking, etc. But, at the end of the day, most of us still care for the patient even though much of their problems are completely self-inflicted.
This virus has turned many of us against our fellow humans, even against our own families. I think we should all do our best to take care of ourselves and do our best to assist others in the same. If someone chooses a different path for their own health, all we can do is wish them the best.

Supporting the right of people to remain unvaccinated, with COVID, at this point, is knowingly believing it’s all well and good for people to wait 6-8 hours to sit in a ED waiting room (with coughing unvaccinated COVID+) to be seen, for the admitted patient to board for days in the ED due to lack of beds, to be sent to a hospital hours away because your local place has no beds, to receive suboptimal intermediate/floor level care because your ICU is full, to completely burn out your hospital staff, to tell your staff this is simply all about personal liberties when they watch their fellow humans waste away and die awful deaths consuming massive
amounts of human capital and hospital resources for weeks/months, and to tell your neighbor the surgery they’ve waited on for months/arranged time off of work to recover/arranged family members to help them at home must wait longer because elective schedules are off as hospitals are low on staff/out of beds as they’re full of COVID patients. Again. And again. And again.

We’ve done this enough to understand COVID isn’t the flu. There are not unlimited resources available to deal with the number of Americans who need their freedumb of choice to remain unvaccinated.

Choices have consequences. I’m tired of excuses to remain unvaccinated from COVID because of the downstream effects.

If every single unvaccinated person died at home and never stepped foot in a hospital, and their decisions only inconvenienced themself and no one else, then I wouldn’t care. They could do whatever they want. But that isn’t the world I live in.

 

[Blockit]

Supporting the right of people to remain unvaccinated, with COVID, at this point, is knowingly believing it’s all well and good for people to wait 6-8 hours to sit in a ED waiting room (with coughing unvaccinated COVID+) to be seen, for the admitted patient to board for days in the ED due to lack of beds, to be sent to a hospital hours away because your local place has no beds, to receive suboptimal intermediate/floor level care because your ICU is full, to completely burn out your hospital staff, to tell your staff this is simply all about personal liberties when they watch their fellow humans waste away and die awful deaths consuming massive
amounts of human capital and hospital resources for weeks/months, and to tell your neighbor the surgery they’ve waited on for months/arranged time off of work to recover/arranged family members to help them at home must wait longer because elective schedules are off as hospitals are low of staff/out of beds as they’re full of COVID patients. Again. And again. And again.

We’ve done this enough to understand COVID isn’t the flu. There are not unlimited resources available to deal with the number of Americans who need their freedumb of choice to remain unvaccinated.

Choices have consequences. I’m tired of excuses to remain unvaccinated from COVID because of the downstream effects on their fellow human.

If every single unvaccinated person died at home and never stepped foot in a hospital, and their decisions only inconvenienced themself and no one else, then I wouldn’t care. They could do whatever they want. But that isn’t the world I live in.

Hear hear. If the unvaccinated want to have “freedom of choice“ and live on a ranch in Wyoming somewhere, order out for all of their supplies and leave the rest of us the f alone I would be happy with that. But that’s not what’s happening. Despite what all the right wing *****s say, your “freedoms” stop when they begin to impinge on the freedoms of the rest of society.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Scratch what I said earlier. We should definitely shame people relentlessly if they decide to have a different opinion. That will help make people agree with us and make proper decisions. No more mister nice guy.

 

[vector2]

What absolute nonsense. You're living in some fantasy land if you think the folks who haven't been vaccinated are that way because someone just hasn't asked them nicely enough with sugar on top. When even trump is going around telling people he's been vaxxed and boosted and yet some are still recalcitrant, then we have moved WELL past the point that one could be swayed by a rational, kind argument.

 

[nimbus]

Scratch what I said earlier. We should definitely shame people relentlessly if they decide to have a different opinion. That will help make people agree with us and make proper decisions. No more mister nice guy.

Because the antivaxxers have been so respectful of the “other side” and open to different opinions. We have to realize what we’re dealing with. This is the nutjob who was on biPAP asking for prayers, then went silent.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Thank goodness there are only nutjobs on one side of the argument...
All I said was that this virus is bringing out the worst in people on both sides and that maybe we should all be more patient with each other and allow each to make their own decision. And look at the responses I got from people who I agree with on 95% of the issue. It certainly proved my point. There are even examples above of exactly what I spoke of. People who seem to have schadenfreude over the seeming demise of those who actively spoke out with a differing opinion. There is even a thread on Reddit about the Herman Cain Award, where they openly gloat over the death of anyone who voiced an anti COVID vaccine opinion.
My only point is that losing your mind and going off on people is not the way to have a positive impact. I suspect there are those on this thread who may need to consider that, based on the "knives out" response to my post which seems to verify the point I was trying to make.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

False Equivalency

Description:

The argument simultaneously condemns and excuses both sides in a dispute by claiming that both sides are (equally) guilty of inappropriate behavior or bad reasoning. While the argument appears to be treating both sides equally, it is generally used to condemn an opponent or to excuse ones own position.


“Wrong on both sides”

False Equivalency

www2.palomar.edu

 

[GassYous]

Does it feel good to act all sanctimonious like that?

 

[STLINI]

Well said. The question now is whether the ROI for continuously shaming, coercing, and othering these people is worth it. We're driving deep fractures in society for very little benefit at this point in my opinion. We've had universal access to vaccines for a year. Boosters are available seemingly on every street corner. Most of the COVID patients admitted right now are there because they made the poor decision to remain unvaccinated. My hospital is currently pushed to our limit with these folks currently. But there are still far more people admitted with complications of other poor decisions. At what point does not being vaccinated against COVID become one of a multitude of bad decisions we tacitly accept? We don't try to exclude people from society for not managing their diabetes, being obese, smoking, not taking their Lipitor or any other number of things that put them in the hospital.

I understand that COVID is an infectious disease and diabetes isn't. Unfortunately the current versions of the vaccines do not meaningfully impact transmission. Booster poster child Israel is currently experiencing record numbers of cases, and decided a 4th shot doesn't likely make sense. There are papers out of Canada and Denmark suggesting negative efficacy against Omicron with regards to infection. My vaccine protects ME against severe disease. It has very little broader societal benefit. Yet we have cities and states that won't allow an unvaccinated 6 year old into a restaurant. This is insanity. Does anyone really think this will be viewed positively by history?

Our society seems to be coming apart at the seams, we have more than enough things to argue and scream at each other about. This subject just isn't worth it any longer.

What absolute nonsense. You're living in some fantasy land if you think the folks who haven't been vaccinated are that way because someone just hasn't asked them nicely enough with sugar on top. When even trump is going around telling people he's been vaxxed and boosted and yet some are still recalcitrant, then we have moved WELL past the point that one could be swayed by a rational, kind argument.

 

[dhb]

Supporting the right of people to remain unvaccinated, with COVID, at this point, is knowingly believing it’s all well and good for people to wait 6-8 hours to sit in a ED waiting room (with coughing unvaccinated COVID+) to be seen, for the admitted patient to board for days in the ED due to lack of beds, to be sent to a hospital hours away because your local place has no beds, to receive suboptimal intermediate/floor level care because your ICU is full, to completely burn out your hospital staff, to tell your staff this is simply all about personal liberties when they watch their fellow humans waste away and die awful deaths consuming massive
amounts of human capital and hospital resources for weeks/months, and to tell your neighbor the surgery they’ve waited on for months/arranged time off of work to recover/arranged family members to help them at home must wait longer because elective schedules are off as hospitals are low on staff/out of beds as they’re full of COVID patients. Again. And again. And again.

Is this really common place in the US at a staewide level? Because that would be the only place in the world that has such an inadequacy of capacity vs occupancy. Maybe it's also due to the fact that more than 70% of the US adult population is overweight which is clearly a disadvantage for Covid infections.
The same argument has been made in France about surgery being postponed for patients (without specifying that it's in the public hospitals) while most private hopitals are functionning normaly.
At the beginning of the pandemic there was a meeting between our private hospital and the towns public hospital about transfering surgeries to our facility. After 2y of covid we have received exactly 0 patient from them. Why? I guess the administration of the public hospital wants to keep the covid money (public money) and also keep the revenue from the delayed surgeries (all in the benefit of public interest of course). MDs are salaried so don't have a bone in this game. Bonus point they get to blame the unvaccinated for their hoarding of public money when the private sector in France is 100% capable of shoreing up the delays in the public sector.
I've done some locums in public hospitals and in most places they will do 2 max 3 cases per day per room, very very long turnovers and inefficiencies.

 

[nimbus]

Is this really common place in the US at a staewide level? Because that would be the only place in the world that has such an inadequacy of capacity vs occupancy. Maybe it's also due to the fact that more than 70% of the US adult population is overweight which is clearly a disadvantage for Covid infections.
The same argument has been made in France about surgery being postponed for patients (without specifying that it's in the public hospitals) while most private hopitals are functionning normaly.
At the beginning of the pandemic there was a meeting between our private hospital and the towns public hospital about transfering surgeries to our facility. After 2y of covid we have received exactly 0 patient from them. Why? I guess the administration of the public hospital wants to keep the covid money (public money) and also keep the revenue from the delayed surgeries (all in the benefit of public interest of course). MDs are salaried so don't have a bone in this game. Bonus point they get to blame the unvaccinated for their hoarding of public money when the private sector in France is 100% capable of shoreing up the delays in the public sector.
I've done some locums in public hospitals and in most places they will do 2 max 3 cases per day per room, very very long turnovers and inefficiencies.

 

[dhb]

.

 

[Southpaw]

Is this really common place in the US at a staewide level? Because that would be the only place in the world that has such an inadequacy of capacity vs occupancy. Maybe it's also due to the fact that more than 70% of the US adult population is overweight which is clearly a disadvantage for Covid infections.
The same argument has been made in France about surgery being postponed for patients (without specifying that it's in the public hospitals) while most private hopitals are functionning normaly.
At the beginning of the pandemic there was a meeting between our private hospital and the towns public hospital about transfering surgeries to our facility. After 2y of covid we have received exactly 0 patient from them. Why? I guess the administration of the public hospital wants to keep the covid money (public money) and also keep the revenue from the delayed surgeries (all in the benefit of public interest of course). MDs are salaried so don't have a bone in this game. Bonus point they get to blame the unvaccinated for their hoarding of public money when the private sector in France is 100% capable of shoreing up the delays in the public sector.
I've done some locums in public hospitals and in most places they will do 2 max 3 cases per day per room, very very long turnovers and inefficiencies.

I can't speak for all states but every major health system in my state has been at or exceeded capacity and stopped elective surgeries with every surge. Our ED has held ICU patients for days waiting on available ICU beds. Our smaller referral centers have been forced to care for patients they'd normally send out due to lack of capacity at the mothership. We've stopped elective surgeries again. This has been the case with every surge.

 

[chessknt]

Scratch what I said earlier. We should definitely shame people relentlessly if they decide to have a different opinion. That will help make people agree with us and make proper decisions. No more mister nice guy.

Be honest with yourself, you are never going to agree with the fact that antivax people are hurting others. No reason to pretend everyone should be respectful when that is no longer being practiced by the antivax crowd.

 

[Straight2eight]

I see folks on this thread stating either that a) vaccines meaningfully reduce transmission or b) that they do not. There has been little discussion on the point despite its use as a premise for argument. Anyone care to elaborate on why they think a) or b) ? Seems like one of the more important questions to discuss…

 

[Gern Blansten]

Be honest with yourself, you are never going to agree with the fact that antivax people are hurting others. No reason to pretend everyone should be respectful when that is no longer being practiced by the antivax crowd.

For clarity, as I stated, I am not antivax. Yes, the virus is a huge imposition in many ways and people who are catching the virus are getting very sick. Has everyone screaming at them done anything more than cause them to dig in their heels? I would argue that rational discussions are the only things that will work. Some will choose not to despite a rational conversation. I would argue that many who think they are having rational discussions in person and on the internet and social media are not really having rational discussions, as evidenced by this entire thread.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I see folks on this thread stating either that a) vaccines meaningfully reduce transmission or b) that they do not. There has been little discussion on the point despite its use as a premise for argument. Anyone care to elaborate on why they think a) or b) ? Seems like one of the more important questions to discuss…

The vaccine's poor performance against omicron has emboldened the ones who have chosen not to vaccinate. Given that 98% or so is now the omicron variant, and the vaccine performs poorly in preventing it, I can see where many would be hesitant. I still believe it likely prevents severe illness and I am glad that I am vaccinated and recommend it to others. I am not going to be the angry guy wishing death upon the unvaccinated and smirking piously when an outspoken anti vaxxer dies. I simply believe that both sides should be more civil. I sense that many here do not agree, since the name-calling has already begun.
I expected the differing opinions and some backlash from the request for civility. I was not disappointed.