Insanity is peaking again

On the news we are told that hospitals are short staffed.

We are also being told that hospitals are firing staff that dont want to be vaccinated for various reasons.

How does anyone explain that insanity???

 

There's even one more level of insanity on top of that. Unvaccinated people who get tested weekly are actually less likely to get and spread the virus than the vaccinated who don't get tested weekly because both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated can get and spread the virus. So, while the unvaccinated person has been fired, the vaccinated staff who don't get tested are out there spreading the virus.

 

Maybe they are TRYING to further help create a shortage so they can complain about it?

Some people will have difficulty believing that, but these people care about politics and public perceptions more than they care about actual medical wellbeing and lives.

 

The percentage of people being fired for not upholding the vaccine mandate is very tiny, like around 1% or fewer. As a matter of fact, I probably should revise my stance of being against mandates (at least as far as healthcare organizations are concerned), because to my surprise, they are actually working. I thought there would be more attrition and more rebellion and things would backfire, but actually, hospitals are achieving 99% of vaccination rates from these mandates (soon to be 100% when the non-vaccinated are shown the door). But the short staffing thing is also due to other reasons: exhaustion, frustration...

Look at the New York-Presbyterian Hospital (by the way, arguably the best hospital in the City of New York (ranked as #1 for the City and #4 for the country).

They have 20,813 full time employees. They had to fire only about 250 employees. That's 1.2%.

While I remain skeptical of mandates in many situations, it does make more sense in the healthcare setting where the Flu shot and the Hep B shot are already mandatory. After all, healthcare workers directly work with vulnerable patients, and it's an environment with high amounts of SARS-CoV-2. Also, if a healthcare worker doesn't believe in science, maybe indeed that person should not be working in a science-driven sector of the economy such as healthcare. So, good riddance.

 

Another ridiculous post by Kazenatsu. Why am I not surprised?

The true answer is very simple: hospitals prefer to lose 1% of their workforce but have everyone who stays vaccinated, than having only 1% more employees, but these being superspreaders of a deadly disease that will profoundly affect hospital operation and will short-staff it even more as infected people need to drop out of the workforce. Duh.

 

Except the vaccine likely doesn't prevent the spread to more than a moderate degree. Very likely less than a mask does.
The amount of staff hospitals are terminating in some hospitals is greater than 1%, maybe more like 3 or 4%. Some of those who are choosing to get vaccinated are very not happy about it.

Let's keep in mind there might be a similarly sized percentage of hospital staff who are finding creative ways to make it appear to their employer they got the vaccine when they actually did not. When people are backed into a corner and threatened with losing their job, with something they feel is very unfair, they are often willing to resort to all sorts of things that are not normally characteristic for them to do.

 

As usual you're rich in opinions and poor in substantiation. Show me evidence of 3% or 4%. I showed a real life case of 1.2% to you.

No, unlike you say, the vaccine is very protective because regardless of absolute numbers, the proportion of breakthrough infections remains very tiny among the vaccinated, but of course an anti-vaxxer like you won't ever acknowledge it, and will lie and obfuscate, presenting data in a way that disguises the truth, or you'll just make up stuff like you're known for, in your numerous blatant lies about the vaccines.

Are you being paid to spout your anti-vaxxer nonsense here?

 

Show me evidence the vaccine reduces infection spread rate to a huge degree. I haven't seen any.

We've had whole threads about that, and none of you seemed to be able to come up with any studies.

 

So far the metal hasn't hit the curb yet. The deadlines at most hospitals have not approached yet, so we will find out.

700 Yale New Haven employees face termination if not vaccinated by Sept. 30 deadline (beckershospitalreview.com)
Article says they will be suspended by Oct. 11 and fired by Oct. 18.

 

Yeah but then typically the majority folds and gets vaccinated. The ones who prefer to be fired then fall in line with the 1%.

 

Yeah, sure, I can.

https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/

"The rate of breakthrough cases reported among those fully vaccinated is below 1% in all reporting states, ranging from 0.01% in Connecticut to 0.54% in Arkansas."

So, dear, since you need to FIRST catch the virus before you infect others, if the vaccines reduce the breakthrough infections to 0.01% to 0.54%, they OBVIOUSLY reduce the spread of the infection.

LOL.

Do you ACTUALLY think you can compete with me in terms of evidence? You, an accomplished liar, versus me, a real-life medical scientist? LOL.

 

The fact is the China Virus will always be with us yet it will diminish (that is unless China hits us with another bio attack maybe through illegal invaders). The left and American Marxists would definitely like to keep this thing going at least until the midterms or possibly 2024. It has worked very well for them. It's not going to rule my life!

 

That's not really proof how much it prevents the spread.

The problem with the study you cited is something called statistical bias: By its very nature it is only looking at those who sought testing for symptoms.

You of course, I'm sure, should have fully realised this.

If very few people were actually exposed to Covid in the first place, of course only a fraction of a percent of them would get it.
It seems to me the numbers in that study are meaningless without comparison to equivalent numbers for non-vaccinated persons.

 

Sorry, but of course the very small number of breakthrough infections is extremely important in considering this problem we're talking about because obviously one needs to first catch the virus before one can pass it on to others.

And sorry, but the idea that it's just that infections are going undiagnosed among the vaccinated, has been thoroughly debunked by serological surveys and populational proportions.

Not to forget, it wouldn't be very decisive in considering this issue, because unvaccinated infections go undiagnosed too, so this would lessen the impact of this, as a difference between the groups.

People like to say, out of their hats, that we're missing 9 out of 10 cases of Covid... LOL, we had 44 million confirmed cases... and we have a population of 331 million people... so if we were missing 9 out of 10 cases, we'd have to have the ENTIRE population of the United States having had Covid, and that would give us a population of 440 million people... 33% bigger than our actual population.

We have performed 643 million tests... almost two per each American... No, we're NOT missing many cases (and yes, I do know that many people are tested more than once, but still...)

Countries that conducted extensive serology surveys noticed that they were missing at most 1 or maybe 2 cases for each diagnosed case.

So, let's say we're missing 2 for each diagnosed case - unlikely, as we'd have to have had 132 million cases, and this added to our almost 200 million vaccinated people, would give us substantial populational immunity, which would be incompatible with us still posting more than 120,000 new cases per day. The virus would have had nowhere to go... while it keeps spreading fast. So we're probably not even missing that many.

But for the sake of the argument, let's suppose we were... then, we'd be seeing breakthrough infections 3 times about the rates they found... so, from 0.03% to 1.62%... Let's consider then a mid-point of some 0.825%...

So less than 1% of the vaccinated people are catching breakthrough infections with some possibility of passing it on.

Recent studies (I did link to them in my recent posting history) showed that even though breakthrough infections start with similar viral loads to unvaccinated infections, the former clear the virus and drop the viral load quite rapidly, in a matter of a few days, while the unvaccinated infections linger with high viral load for 7-10 days. So it's less than 1%...and even those, less infectious and infectious for a shorter period.

If given the above you can't understand that the vaccines actually do decrease infectiousness... I pity you.

OK, you want a comparison with unvaccinated ones?

https://www.desertsun.com/story/new...-than-vaccinated-riverside-county/5573484001/

See, unvaccinated people in this survey were 37 times more likely to be infected...

So, if we got the vaccinated ones with a rate of 0.825%, then that x 37 = 30.525%

Anyway, I wouldn't think it goes as high as the 30% above because my calculation was based on a bit of guess work... but in the real world as in this same study, we see this:

"Among the 1,061,806 fully vaccinated individuals ages 12 and older in Riverside County, 3,761 (0.35%) have had a COVID-19 case and 23 (0.002%) have died. Among the 830,482 unvaccinated individuals, there have been 109,635 (13.2%) COVID-19 cases and 2,148 (0.3%) deaths."

So, come again? You don't see any evidence that the vaccinated transmit the disease less than the unvaccinated? LOL

If only 0.35% of them catch the disease versus 13.2% for the unvaccinated, who in the hell do you suppose is responsible for the bigger chunk of the contagion???

-------

By the way, your idea that all the people reported in my earlier link sought testing due to symptoms is blatantly false. A huge number of people get tested due to the nature of their work, for contact tracing, etc.; not necessarily due to symptoms.

 

You're missing the point. You need to compare it to the non-vaccinated, in the same context, since it is looking at the entire population.

One problem is those seem to be two separate studies, and in different areas. You can only look at each study in isolation.

First of all, don't you find it the least bit suspicious that the vaccine seems to be so much more effective in the state of California?

And this still doesn't necessarily say anything specific about the spread. You seem to be making the assumption that those who have been vaccinated and seem to be asymptomatic cannot be infected and spread the virus.

And might there be a little bit of statistical bias here? The area where that study was is very culturally diverse. It's very possible (and even likely) that those who were vaccinated were already taking other precautions that the average unvaccinated person was less likely to take.
Hispanic culture generally doesn't like being told what to do, and I believe they had a lower rate of vaccination at the time than white people (might be different by now).

In summary, I see numerous likely alternative explanations for the outcome of that study (which was only conducted in one county), on top of it not being directly relevant to the point I brought up that you were responding to.

 

Well, of course, any study showing a conclusion that isn't about to support your anti-vaxxer points, you're fast to dismiss. Why am I not surprised?