Unemployed due to SCOTUS

[IMGASMD]

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.

Rly? This is what you can come up with? Whoever is using this argument had almost a year to get vaccinate.

Because it performs so poorly now, therefore I am glad I didn’t get it?

I am not well versed in debate. But com’on.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

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.

Except rational discussions rarely do. I'm FM and I spent the first half of 2020 trying to convince my patients to get vaccinated. I'd say I changed someone's mind at best one in every 40-50 patients. I wasnt judgemental, I just presented the facts as they were then and ended by damned near begging them to get vaccinated.

 

[thinkorswim]

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.

I will show no such civility to anyone who believes their "personal freedom" is more important than the health of other patients who cannot receive care due to our hospitals being at capacity, and more personally, the health of my young children who cannot be vaccinated. If they don't like the disrespect, then they can stay at home.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Rly? This is what you can come up with? Whoever is using this argument had almost a year to get vaccinate.

Because it performs so poorly now, therefore I am glad I didn’t get it?

I am not well versed in debate. But com’on.

You disagree that people are emboldened by what I said or are you attributing the statement saying that this is what I believe? If you do not believe this argument is being made, then I am here to tell it is. There are lots of people out there unvaccinated who never got sick and now are looking at a vaccine that is ineffective against the variant. So, yeah, I think they are feeling emboldened about their decision. I’m not saying it’s correct and that they were not rolling the dice on their gamble. But, yeah there are many out there doing just fine. In low risk groups, the VAST majority of people will do fine. My point is, the message surrounding COVID from Fauci, Trump, Biden and Harris has been all over the place. Many are vaccine hesitant because of it.
The question was asked what arguments are being used on each side. I simply shared one side that I hear on a regular basis.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I will show no such civility to anyone who believes their "personal freedom" is more important than the health of other patients who cannot receive care due to our hospitals being at capacity, and more personally, the health of my young children who cannot be vaccinated. If they don't like the disrespect, then they can stay at home.

Ok. I hope that my physician team will be more caring. But ok.

 

[STLINI]

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 problem is there's probably hundreds of studies looking at this now using different vaccines, with different dosing intervals, in different populations, for varying lengths of time, with and without boosters. Did they only look for symptomatic infections? How hard did they actually try to find cases? The resulting multitude of data can be twisted to support whatever preconceived notion you want.

That said my understanding of the Pfizer vaccine at least is that for 7-14 days following the initial dose it actually INCREASES your risk of infection (by up to 140% in one European study.) The mechanism is probably at least in part a temporary lymphophenia following initial immunization. This time interval was excluded from the initial studies. Then you get a few months of pretty darn good protection which begins waning rapidly and is completely gone by 6 months. Add booster, repeat. Thankfully the protection against severe disease is more durable. This was all true pre-Omicron. Omicron is both exacerbating the vaccines' deficiencies and providing a very convenient excuse for their issues.

There are now studies from at least 3 continents showing 2 doses of Pfizer provides negative efficacy with regards to infection. I find this....mechanistically puzzling and hard to believe, but also difficult to completely ignore at this point. So do these vaccines decrease transmission? I dunno, maybe a little for a while. Certainly not enough to merit the hysterics and vitriol that surround them these days.

 

[Southpaw]

@STLINI how does the vaccine do with severity of illness, hospitalization, admission to ICU, and death?

If a disease isn’t very lethal to being with, and COVID isn’t, what do we want the vaccine to actually do? Prevent the disease or prevent a death from the disease?

Getting sick from COVID if you’re unvaccinated, getting over it, and then pointing the finger to say ‘See I told you this wasn’t bad!’, while your neighbor two streets over dies, is missing the forest for the trees in my opinion. And yet that’s exactly where we are as a country.

 

[nimbus]

 

[nimbus]

 

[vector2]

. 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.

A couple things.

1. It’s already been discussed ad nauseum how preventing chronic diseases which were 20 years in the making (and which are very difficult to treat) is in no way, shape, or form analogous to spending 10 minutes going down to your local CVS and getting a free shot. It’s just not. Any pretension otherwise is purely a false equivalency.

2. The interpretation that a “paper out of Denmark” shows “negative efficacy” is an erroneous misinterpration that’s making circles on the misinformation sphere known as right wing social media. See:

Danish study did not conclude that COVID-19 vaccines adversely impact immune systems or that COVID-19 vaccines are completely ineffective against the Omicron variant

A Danish preprint study did not conclude that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines harm the immune system nor did the authors conclude that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are completely ineffective against the Omicron variant. However, many on social media have misinterpreted vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates...

www.reuters.com

 

[vector2]

And as for the Canadian study:

“

Study updating findings with totally different results​

But the paradoxical findings were later found to have been influenced by behavioural and methodological issues, such as the timing of the observational study, the way in which vaccine passports altered individual risk and changes in access to COVID-19 testing.

The results are currently being updated with additional data that showed completely different results, said Dr. Jeff Kwong, the study's lead author and an epidemiologist and senior scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Toronto.

"We're in the process of adding two more weeks of data and it looks like there's no more negative VE (vaccine effectiveness). Our results are now more in line with the data from the U.K. where it's lower, for sure, compared to Delta, but never getting to negative," he told CBC News.

"And then higher VE with the boost. So I think that's good news and we're just in the process of running those analyses and we hope to have an updated version, a version two, by sometime next week." “

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-study-omicron-anti-vaxxers-1.6315890

 

[pgg]

Ok. I hope that my physician team will be more caring. But ok.

Caring is soooooo 2020 and 2021

 

[Goro]

A couple things.

1. It’s already been discussed ad nauseum how preventing chronic diseases which were 20 years in the making (and which are very difficult to treat) is in no way, shape, or form analogous to spending 10 minutes going down to your local CVS and getting a free shot. It’s just not. Any pretension otherwise is purely a false equivalency.

2. The interpretation that a “paper out of Denmark” shows “negative efficacy” is an erroneous misinterpration that’s making circles on the misinformation sphere known as right wing social media. See:

Danish study did not conclude that COVID-19 vaccines adversely impact immune systems or that COVID-19 vaccines are completely ineffective against the Omicron variant

A Danish preprint study did not conclude that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines harm the immune system nor did the authors conclude that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are completely ineffective against the Omicron variant. However, many on social media have misinterpreted vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates...

www.reuters.com

In addition, the statement, "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." ignores the fact that these chronic diseases aren't transmissible, nor ds o all of those patients with these diseases threaten to blow out the health care system.

Several of my former students who became hospitalists and intensivists (is that a word?) have given Zoom seminars to my Faculty colleagues and students, and each one of them has the proverbial "thousand yard stare" of those who have combat fatigue.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Caring is soooooo 2020 and 2021

Apparently.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

A “rationale conversation” (part 1):

Me: please sir, can you put your mask on, it’s hospital policy.
Patient: (wearing mask sideways, hanging from one ear, hacking up a lung with a “let’s go Brandon” t-shirt) I can’t breathe in this damn thing.
Me: I know sir but it is to help prevent the spread of a deadly virus. Are you vaccinated?
Patient: F you, this virus ain’t even real. I ain’t getting no damn shot in my arm, it’s filled with poison and Trump won the election!
Me: Ok then, let’s talk about your cancer.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

A “rationale conversation” (part 1):

Me: please sir, can you put your mask on, it’s hospital policy.
Patient: (wearing mask sideways, hanging from one ear, hacking up a lung with a “let’s go Brandon” t-shirt) I can’t breathe in this damn thing.
Me: I know sir but it is to help prevent the spread of a deadly virus. Are you vaccinated?
Patient: F you, this virus ain’t even real. I ain’t getting no damn shot in my arm, it’s filled with poison and Trump won the election!
Me: Ok then, let’s talk about your cancer.

If a patient says F you to me, they are instantly dismissed. Same if they refuse to wear a mask after I explain that it's hospital policy that requires everyone to do so.

Works out to about 1 patient every 2 weeks or so.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

If a patient says F you to me, they are instantly dismissed. Same if they refuse to wear a mask after I explain that it's hospital policy that requires everyone to do so.

Works out to about 1 patient every 2 weeks or so.

In the area I work in, I wouldn’t have any patients and it’s a very conservative hospital.

Granted, most patients eventually do come around to reluctantly wearing a mask because that’s the only way they can be treated. I do make sure to not discuss anything political (unfortunately, COVID is political).

I just take my lumps as I did in residency and move on to the next patient, maybe vent on here and continue to lose money in the stock market.

 

[Gern Blansten]

That data seems like it peaks at 92% effectiveness at 2-4 weeks, which is what would be expected. Then there begins a sharp decline for which data is only followed for a few weeks afterwards, but the trend seems that it is beginning to decline. Why not show the rest of the data for the next several months? What is the plan for boosters? Every 8 weeks to combat the efficacy decline? Serious question.
WRT the Canadian study, it seems strange. You rarely hear of people publishing their studies and then re-publishing them months later with new data. If I were a skeptic, that would make me wonder what is going on.
I’m just offering up the ideas that I think are obvious to those who would be skeptical of our scientific leaders.
The goalposts have definitely been moved quite a bit by Fauci and other leaders such as Biden, Harris, AOC, Pelosi. The rules apply to the public but not to them. AOC vacationing in Florida while advocating for stricter rules for her constituents and publicly bashing Desantis?
There is quite a bit of Kabuki theater surrounding the entire COVID and mask thing. You wear a mask to walk across a restaurant and then take it off for the next 1.5 hours while you eat but put it on to walk to the restroom. I hope that we all know that this does nothing to stop a virus. What do we expect people to believe when these types of policies are out there?

 

[Southpaw]

That data seems like it peaks at 92% effectiveness at 2-4 weeks, which is what would be expected. Then there begins a sharp decline for which data is only followed for a few weeks afterwards, but the trend seems that it is beginning to decline. Why not show the rest of the data for the next several months? What is the plan for boosters? Every 8 weeks to combat the efficacy decline? Serious question.
WRT the Canadian study, it seems strange. You rarely hear of people publishing their studies and then re-publishing them months later with new data. If I were a skeptic, that would make me wonder what is going on.
I’m just offering up the ideas that I think are obvious to those who would be skeptical of our scientific leaders.
The goalposts have definitely been moved quite a bit by Fauci and other leaders such a Biden, Harris, AOC, Pelosi. The rules apply to the public but not to them. AOC vacationing in Florida while advocating for stricter rules for her constituents and publically bashing Desantis?
There is quite a bit of Kabuki theater surrounding the entire COVID and mask thing. You wear a mask to walk across a restaurant and then take it off for the next 1.5 hours while you eat but put it in the walk to the restroom. I hope that we all know that this does nothing to stop a virus. What do we expect people to believe when these types of policies are out there?

I don't think we can stop people from getting the virus. I do think we can keep them out of the hospital for the most part which, at least for me, means that COVID is reduced to a very transmissible cold but life as I know it goes on. Patients get service in their EDs. Hospitals have beds. ICUs have beds. Elective surgery schedules move forward. I don't think at this point I can ask for more than that, but even that seems a huge ask because it requires vaccination.

 

[2Fast2Des]

In the area I work in, I wouldn’t have any patients and it’s a very conservative hospital.

Granted, most patients eventually do come around to reluctantly wearing a mask because that’s the only way they can be treated. I do make sure to not discuss anything political (unfortunately, COVID is political).

I just take my lumps as I did in residency and move on to the next patient, maybe vent on here and continue to lose money in the stock market.

I've gotta say I've lost any empathy in those types of people. They are ruining healthcare and quality of life for everyone, showing their true colors about how selfish they are,and have a general disregard for being responsible members of a society\larger world where we all have to play our part to keep society safe and going. If you get Covid and you are a Trumper *****, you reap what you sow. Let natural selection do what it has been doing for eons. I cannot empathize with someone who can't let me have the life I want because of their ignorance, and now compromises my ability to earn a salary because of their devotion to Dear Leader and causing shut down of my workplace. Bless those of you whom have to take care of these people and keep your sanity, don't know how you do it...

 

[Neopolymath]

To use a republican argument: I don't want people freeloading for XYZ thing.

Well, when the unvaccinated dip****s come to the hospital and rack up a million dollar bill who do you think pays for this garbage? All of us. Do the Republican thing and get vaccinated then or don't fuss about welfare ever again in your life.

There are a million reasons these people are wrong but this one irritates me the most because it's illustrates how disingenuous they are. It's not about being a scared chicken**** about a vaccine. It's about dummy politics for mouth breathers.

 

[STLINI]

A couple things.

1. It’s already been discussed ad nauseum how preventing chronic diseases which were 20 years in the making (and which are very difficult to treat) is in no way, shape, or form analogous to spending 10 minutes going down to your local CVS and getting a free shot. It’s just not. Any pretension otherwise is purely a false equivalency.

2. The interpretation that a “paper out of Denmark” shows “negative efficacy” is an erroneous misinterpration that’s making circles on the misinformation sphere known as right wing social media. See:

Danish study did not conclude that COVID-19 vaccines adversely impact immune systems or that COVID-19 vaccines are completely ineffective against the Omicron variant

A Danish preprint study did not conclude that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines harm the immune system nor did the authors conclude that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are completely ineffective against the Omicron variant. However, many on social media have misinterpreted vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates...

www.reuters.com

1. I don't disagree at all. But, ultimately, these people are making poor decisions and suffering because of it. We tolerate a lot of poor decisions in this country. In my opinion, the increasingly divisive and coercive measures trying to reach this minority are becoming untenable.

2. That article really isn't a very convincing refutation of the Denmark paper. It's basically a lot of words to say "we showed that 2 doses of vaccine provides no protection against infection w/ Omicron, but don't want to be accused of feeding the "misinformation" boogeyman so we'll offer a few possibly true but unfalsifiable explanations for our results." And suggesting that unvaccinated people might be infected less because they are more careful just doesn't ring true at all in my experience. The handful of unvaccinated people I know can barely accept that SARS-CoV2 is a real virus. They certainly aren't taking any precautions.

The Canadian paper updating with new data is interesting. But they say that their new results are in line with the "UK data." The UK paper cited in that article showed "zero to 20 per cent protection." Again, in my opinion, this level of protection simply doesn't merit the restrictions that have been introduced into our society. I haven't seen any data that the booster changes this for any more than 2-3 months, but I'd love to be wrong here.

 

[Blockit]

I've gotta say I've lost any empathy in those types of people. They are ruining healthcare and quality of life for everyone, showing their true colors about how selfish they are,and have a general disregard for being responsible members of a society\larger world where we all have to play our part to keep society safe and going. If you get Covid and you are a Trumper *****, you reap what you sow. Let natural selection do what it has been doing for eons. I cannot empathize with someone who can't let me have the life I want because of their ignorance, and now compromises my ability to earn a salary because of their devotion to Dear Leader and causing shut down of my workplace. Bless those of you whom have to take care of these people and keep your sanity, don't know how you do it...

 

[Gern Blansten]

Since someone has inserted politics (by stating that, if you voted for Trump and get Covid, you reap what you sow), let's not forget the original people who spoke out so loudly against anyone receiving Trump's vaccine. Our current POTUS and VPOTUS were the most vocal against the vaccine from the very outset because they knew that Trump had laid the groundwork for collaboration to get the vaccine to the market in unprecedented time, and they did not trust that it was safe and they definitely did not want him to get any credit for helping in the process. They were quite outspoken against it and it is well documented in the media (although you likely have to dig for it now since most major news outlets have hidden those from the public). Suddenly, the POTUS sees that the vaccine seems to be doing a good job and they get into office a few weeks later and basically claim the vaccine as the Biden vaccine and now they are huge proponents of it. This is an additional source of confusion among the lay public with regards to what to believe about the vaccine.
I am not a huge fan of Trump and I am pretty sure he is an arrogant prick, but I know that his successor is far worse and likely a victim of elder abuse as his handlers prop him against the podium and parade him around much like a sequel to Weekend at Bernie's.
All of Washington DC is full of corrupt criminals and that seems to be the best we can do. I am just shocked that anyone can look at our current leaders and think things are going well. I just can't believe that there can really be 33% (maybe it has dropped to the 20's this week?) of people who approve of the Biden presidency after this first disastrous year.

 

[Southpaw]

Since someone has inserted politics (by stating that, if you voted for Trump and get Covid, you reap what you sow), let's not forget the original people who spoke out so loudly against anyone receiving Trump's vaccine. Our current POTUS and VPOTUS were the most vocal against the vaccine from the very outset because they knew that Trump had laid the groundwork for collaboration to get the vaccine to the market in unprecedented time, and they did not trust that it was safe and they definitely did not want him to get any credit for helping in the process. They were quite outspoken against it and it is well documented in the media (although you likely have to dig for it now since most major news outlets have hidden those from the public). Suddenly, the POTUS sees that the vaccine seems to be doing a good job and they get into office a few weeks later and basically claim the vaccine as the Biden vaccine and now they are huge proponents of it. This is an additional source of confusion among the lay public with regards to what to believe about the vaccine.
I am not a huge fan of Trump and I am pretty sure he is an arrogant prick, but I know that his successor is far worse and likely a victim of elder abuse as his handlers prop him against the podium and parade him around much like a sequel to Weekend at Bernie's.
All of Washington DC is full of corrupt criminals and that seems to be the best we can do. I am just shocked that anyone can look at our current leaders and think things are going well. I just can't believe that there can really be 33% (maybe it has dropped to the 20's this week?) of people who approve of the Biden presidency after this first disastrous year.

Post your link. I'm pretty apolitical these days because of the divisiveness shown by both sides, but I don't ever recall a time or a speech where Biden said he was against the vaccine. I recall plenty of times where he stated he didn't trust Trump. You're a smart guy so I know you understand the difference.

 

[Gern Blansten]

She hedges and says if Fauci says it is okay, then she will do it, but she is definitely undermining the vaccine which will come out soon after this debate occurred.
Looking for a good Biden reference. As you stated, he does speak of lack of trust for Trump and that may be the portion I recall, but it seemed to me that he was setting a tone against the vaccine if it came out while Trump was president, which it did.

 

[chessknt]

She hedges and says if Fauci says it is okay, then she will do it, but she is definitely undermining the vaccine which will come out soon after this debate occurred.
Looking for a good Biden reference. As you stated, he does speak of lack of trust for Trump and that may be the portion I recall, but it seemed to me that he was setting a tone against the vaccine if it came out while Trump was president, which it did.

See this is why people can’t be nice anymore. Remember how trump lied and spewed bull**** nonstop? Remember how by this point he had decided to run roughshod over Fauci and rallied the right to turn him in to some kind of gremlin? Of course everyone was skeptical that the vaccine was going to be the ****ing miracle it was because it was literally the first time in history we have been able to develop and test something that effective. She wanted a scientist to validate these miraculous findings instead of the clown president whose very own press secretary developed the phrase alternative facts.

But no, let’s pretend this was some kind of antivax nonsense that had no grounded basis in the reality we all remember quite well.

 

[Southpaw]

She hedges and says if Fauci says it is okay, then she will do it, but she is definitely undermining the vaccine which will come out soon after this debate occurred.
Looking for a good Biden reference. As you stated, he does speak of lack of trust for Trump and that may be the portion I recall, but it seemed to me that he was setting a tone against the vaccine if it came out while Trump was president, which it did.

Her statement was anti-Trump not anti-vaccine. I think you know this.

 

[GassYous]

She hedges and says if Fauci says it is okay, then she will do it, but she is definitely undermining the vaccine which will come out soon after this debate occurred.
Looking for a good Biden reference. As you stated, he does speak of lack of trust for Trump and that may be the portion I recall, but it seemed to me that he was setting a tone against the vaccine if it came out while Trump was president, which it did.

"If the public health professionals say to take it then I'll be first in line but if donald trump says to take it then I'm nont taking it".

Not really antivaccine

 

[Gern Blansten]

Her statement was anti-Trump not anti-vaccine. I think you know this.

Yes, it was part of the post you quoted. It is clearly undermining trust in the vaccine, though.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Yes, it was part of the post you quoted. It is clearly undermining trust in the vaccine, though.

 

[Gern Blansten]

See this is why people can’t be nice anymore.

We cannot be nice to fellow humans anymore? Because that is really the original point of me joining the fray. To suggest that we should all be nicer to each other. I have now heard from many who disagree with that sentiment.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I don't think we can stop people from getting the virus. I do think we can keep them out of the hospital for the most part which, at least for me, means that COVID is reduced to a very transmissible cold but life as I know it goes on. Patients get service in their EDs. Hospitals have beds. ICUs have beds. Elective surgery schedules move forward. I don't think at this point I can ask for more than that, but even that seems a huge ask because it requires vaccination.

I think we agree on a lot, however, we are approaching this from the premise that, if everyone was fully vaccinated, the virus would be completely under control. I am not sure anyone can ever prove that and data from Israel, the most vaccinated and boosted country in the world (I think) suggests that may not be the case as the number of infected surge.

I suspect that, with that number of cases, they are also experiencing a huge surge in hospitalizations with some of those being critically ill.

If the premise that the virus would be a non-issue if all were vaccinated and boosted turns out to be false, does that change anyone's opinion on how we should treat our fellow humans who may disagree with us?
I have been in medicine long enough to know that we get things completely wrong an awful lot of the time (pain as the 5th vital sign which led to the opioid epidemic, renal dose dopamine, thalidomide, rapacuronium, etc) and we have to do a complete 180 and do the opposite thing. So, I may be a bit more cynical about the things that we are advocating for now because they may be turned on their head in the next 2-20 years.

 

[chessknt]

We cannot be nice to fellow humans anymore? Because that is really the original point of me joining the fray. To suggest that we should all be nicer to each other. I have now heard from many who disagree with that sentiment.

Maybe that should tell you there is something wrong with your thinking. Maybe just this once everyone else isn’t wrong because civility has done absolutely nothing to stem the ocean of misinformation and pig headed obstinate destruction of healthcare by the unvaccinated. Why should we lay down and just be run over by them?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

The conservative urge to be a victim: Why right-wing victimhood is spreading so fast

Victimized Bully Syndrome: From Kyle Rittenhouse to Donald Trump, conservatives are obsessed with being the victim

www.salon.com

“While there remains much to be learned about omicron and its consequences to public health, one thing is clear: The only reason why the nation is at such extreme public health risk is because the GOP weaponized the pandemic for political gain, convincing their supporters to distrust science and resist any policy, no matter how reasonable, if it came from a Democrat.

We've spent time analyzing the head-scratching right-wing ploy of sowing distrust in vaccines within the GOP constituency, a move which has literally killed off supporters and occasionally GOP leaders and pundits as well. But what we haven't done is recognize that the right-wing response to the pandemic is part of a larger political practice: Victimized Bully Syndrome.”

 

[GassYous]

The conservative urge to be a victim: Why right-wing victimhood is spreading so fast

Victimized Bully Syndrome: From Kyle Rittenhouse to Donald Trump, conservatives are obsessed with being the victim

www.salon.com

Everyone is trying to be a victim these days not just conservatives
It's like a contest to see how many supposedly marginalized groups you can identify with

 

[Gern Blansten]

Maybe that should tell you there is something wrong with your thinking. Maybe just this once everyone else isn’t wrong because civility has done absolutely nothing to stem the ocean of misinformation and pig headed obstinate destruction of healthcare by the unvaccinated. Why should we lay down and just be run over by them?

I get accused of being cynical and somewhat jaded but I have not achieved the same level that you are. I still see the good in the majority of people but I know that there are many bad people out there. I try to live in a balance of healthy cynicism about people, but not so much that it makes me unable to enjoy the company of people that I may disagree with on a base level. I see that with my patients all of the time. They start talking and I fundamentally disagree with everything they stand for, but I still try to engage them in a pleasant conversation. It just seems that this virus and the politicization of literally everything makes it tougher for so many to coexist with people that they disagree with. It feels like this type of thinking may be the downfall of civilized society. I would argue that we just accept that we will never all agree and find a way that we can move past that. I sense that many here have passed the rubicon on that particular issue and there is no path back.
I hope that all of us can enjoy our work again soon. Honestly, I have enjoyed my work since day one. There are stressors and COVID has been rough, but I still get a lot of satisfaction in my work and I hope that some of you may find that satisfaction again soon.
I think we agree on more than you think. I am just trying to get across the point that we do not need to hate people that disagree with us. If they spew hate at you, they are the ones that are miserable. You do not have to let it drag you down to their level. If the majority of patients you deal with spew hate at you, like our Rad onc colleague suggested, then maybe you are in the wrong location. There are lots of places where patients are respectful of their doctors (except a few outliers).
Then there is also the idea that you do not have the responsibility to "fix" everyone, so if someone is on the wrong side of an idea, in your opinion, why is it not okay to let them live on that wrong side and you live on your side. You sound very angry at your patients. That is a rough place to start from when establishing a physician patient relationship.

 

[vector2]

1. I don't disagree at all. But, ultimately, these people are making poor decisions and suffering because of it. We tolerate a lot of poor decisions in this country. In my opinion, the increasingly divisive and coercive measures trying to reach this minority are becoming untenable.

You don't disagree.....but then you continued right on and decided to make the false equivalency. The "poor decisions" we tolerate come in degrees of severity, right? It's a "poor decision" that last Sunday I had dessert even though I was already full. The cirrhotic who I did an EGD on today made a "poor decision" by drinking 3 pints of cheap whisky a day for 15 years. Both of these "poor decisions" are not equivalent and should not be treated as such. The same goes for not spending 10 minutes to get a shot vs not beating a 20 year chronic disease that's known in the literature to be difficult to treat.

2. That article really isn't a very convincing refutation of the Denmark paper. It's basically a lot of words to say "we showed that 2 doses of vaccine provides no protection against infection w/ Omicron, but don't want to be accused of feeding the "misinformation" boogeyman so we'll offer a few possibly true but unfalsifiable explanations for our results." And suggesting that unvaccinated people might be infected less because they are more careful just doesn't ring true at all in my experience. The handful of unvaccinated people I know can barely accept that SARS-CoV2 is a real virus. They certainly aren't taking any precautions.

The Canadian paper updating with new data is interesting. But they say that their new results are in line with the "UK data." The UK paper cited in that article showed "zero to 20 per cent protection." Again, in my opinion, this level of protection simply doesn't merit the restrictions that have been introduced into our society. I haven't seen any data that the booster changes this for any more than 2-3 months, but I'd love to be wrong here.

LOL, you're really gonna call it "the misinformation boogeyman"? Seriously? There's not really much of an honest debate to be had if you can't even acknowledge how much absolutely batsht flatout wrong nonsense pervades the internet and social media vis a vis covid and the vaccines.

As for the UK data:

https://t.co/sYt4ygsl7f

2-10 weeks out those who have been boosted are still 50-70 percent less likely to get symptomatic omicron disease at all and are protected from hospitalization at ~90% efficacy.

 

[nimbus]

Operation warpspeed and the mRNA vaccines were the greatest accomplishment of the Trump Administration. I still don’t understand how or why his supporters didn’t jump all over it. “TRUMP VACCINE SAVES AMERICA FROM CHINA VIRUS!!”

 

[nimbus]

I get accused of being cynical and somewhat jaded but I have not achieved the same level that you are. I still see the good in the majority of people but I know that there are many bad people out there. I try to live in a balance of healthy cynicism about people, but not so much that it makes me unable to enjoy the company of people that I may disagree with on a base level. I see that with my patients all of the time. They start talking and I fundamentally disagree with everything they stand for, but I still try to engage them in a pleasant conversation. It just seems that this virus and the politicization of literally everything makes it tougher for so many to coexist with people that they disagree with. It feels like this type of thinking may be the downfall of civilized society. I would argue that we just accept that we will never all agree and find a way that we can move past that. I sense that many here have passed the rubicon on that particular issue and there is no path back.
I hope that all of us can enjoy our work again soon. Honestly, I have enjoyed my work since day one. There are stressors and COVID has been rough, but I still get a lot of satisfaction in my work and I hope that some of you may find that satisfaction again soon.
I think we agree on more than you think. I am just trying to get across the point that we do not need to hate people that disagree with us. If they spew hate at you, they are the ones that are miserable. You do not have to let it drag you down to their level. If the majority of patients you deal with spew hate at you, like our Rad onc colleague suggested, then maybe you are in the wrong location. There are lots of places where patients are respectful of their doctors (except a few outliers).
Then there is also the idea that you do not have the responsibility to "fix" everyone, so if someone is on the wrong side of an idea, in your opinion, why is it not okay to let them live on that wrong side and you live on your side. You sound very angry at your patients. That is a rough place to start from when establishing a physician patient relationship.

That is one of the great benefits of anesthesia as a specialty. Talk to people for 5min tops, then…...

 

[coffeebythelake]

Operation warpspeed and the mRNA vaccines were the greatest accomplishment of the Trump Administration. I still don’t understand how or why his supporters didn’t jump all over it.

Rephrase it.
It wasn't an accomplishment OF the Trump administration.
It happened DURING the Trump Administration.

 

[deleted126335]

Rephrase it.
It wasn't an accomplishment OF the Trump administration.
It happened DURING the Trump Administration.

 

[nimbus]

Rephrase it.
It wasn't an accomplishment OF the Trump administration.
It happened DURING the Trump Administration.

Doesn’t matter. That could have been the narrative and Tucker, Hannity, et al could have run with it.

 

[chessknt]

Doesn’t matter. That could have been the narrative and Tucker, Hannity, et al could have run with it.

Couldn’t happen because Fauci signed off on it and extolled it’s virtues. The party of anti-identity politics couldn’t be seen fraternizing with their boogeyman of 2020 during a presidential election year.

 

[coffeebythelake]

Doesn’t matter. That could have been the narrative and Tucker, Hannity, et al could have run with it.

It was never about vaccines and saving lives. It was about the economy. To do that they had to push the narrative the COVID wasn't serious nad the pandemic was fake. Trump had to proclaim himself the savior and that he and he alone knew what was right. Not the doctors. Not Fauci. That's what they (Trump, Tucker, Hannity, and other bootlickers) ran with, even when it was counter to public health. Makes it a little hard to push for vaccines later when everything they've done earlier was counter to that goal.

 

[nimbus]

Looking at the rate of hospitalizations and deaths among the vaxxed vs unvaxxed and the current death toll of 850000-900000, it’s likely the vaccines have saved several million American lives.

 

[coffeebythelake]

Looking at the rate of hospitalizations and deaths among the vaxxed vs unvaxxed and the current death toll of 850000-900000, it’s likely the vaccines have saved several million American lives.

I wonder how many lives could have been saved if Trump and his sycophants promoted vaccines to Americans instead of vilified it.

 

[nimbus]

I wonder how many lives could have been saved if Trump and his sycophants promoted vaccines to Americans instead of vilified it.

The thing is that Trump has been telling folks to get vaxxed and boosted and he’s been getting booed by his own MAGATs when he does it.

 

[Gern Blansten]

You don't disagree.....but then you continued right on and decided to make the false equivalency. The "poor decisions" we tolerate come in degrees of severity, right? It's a "poor decision" that last Sunday I had dessert even though I was already full. The cirrhotic who I did an EGD on today made a "poor decision" by drinking 3 pints of cheap whisky a day for 15 years. Both of these "poor decisions" are not equivalent and should not be treated as such. The same goes for not spending 10 minutes to get a shot vs not beating a 20 year chronic disease that's known in the literature to be difficult to treat.


LOL, you're really gonna call it "the misinformation boogeyman"? Seriously? There's not really much of an honest debate to be had if you can't even acknowledge how much absolutely batsht flatout wrong nonsense pervades the internet and social media vis a vis covid and the vaccines.

As for the UK data:

View attachment 348574

https://t.co/sYt4ygsl7f

2-10 weeks out those who have been boosted are still 50-70 percent less likely to get symptomatic omicron disease at all and are protected from hospitalization at ~90% efficacy.

That’s the second time you’ve posted that chart. What happens after 10 weeks and what is the end game? If it drops to 30% after 20 weeks, you recommend another booster?
Israel is on fire with Covid as the most vaccinated and boosted nation in the world.

You say all of these are false equivalencies because it takes 10 minutes to get a vaccine and years to get obese or cirrhotic. Others have said that it’s not the same because they are infectious and a risk to healthcare workers. Should we refuse care to HIV positive patients. The majority of them made a terrible decision and got infected and they put us at higher risk. Or should we take precautions and treat them despite their bad decisions?

 

[vector2]

What a convenient question about the end game now that we missed the window to get everyone vaccinated at a time when 2 shots were 70-90% effective at preventing infection let alone hospitalization.



Omicron has a high enough R0 that it's reasonable to speculate it won't be replaced by another variant and it will become endemic. The end game is getting everyone boosted until an omicron specific vaccine is released +- a nasopharygeal spray vaccine. Some vaccinologists have pointed out that inducing a strong iga response in the mucosa and eliminating the virus in the upper airways before it could spread lower may have been much more effective than serum immunity.



And beyond the fact that I never said we shouldn't treat unvaccinated covid pts, your HIV analogy is a poor one. 1. There is no vaccine for HIV. 2. HIV is not a highly contagious airborne virus with an R0 close to measles. 3. HIV pts are not stuffing up hospitals, taking up every ICU bed, delaying care for those with other conditions, prompting lockdowns, and causing a mass exodus in healthcare





@Gern Blansten