Unvaccinated patients getting mad at doctors and nurses

This is quite incredible... unvaccinated patients dying of Covid-19, getting mad at doctors and nurses, instead of realizing that it's out of their own failures that they are in such trouble.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doctor-lost-over-100-patients-123132727.html

In addition to the above, in Canada the husband of a woman assaulted a female nurse, causing serious facial injury, because the nurse gave the Covid-19 vaccine to his wife.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/covid-19-man-accused-repeatedly-070750104.html

So much ignorance... sad.

The reaction to all of the above is that some doctors are now refusing to treat unvaccinated patients. This, I can not endorse. I think it's a grave ethical mistake. Sure, their (the patients') decision was boneheaded, but our mission is to treat everybody who needs care, regardless of the person's shortcomings. While doctors are exhausted, this is not acceptable.

I have vented similar feelings here... "don't come to my hospital" - but that wasn't for real. I vented here out of frustration... but never acted like this in my professional life. Whoever needs my help, I treat.

 

I can't help but think of the now famous saying: "Stupid is as stupid does",

 

It is a trend that has extended beyond hospitals as well. In Melbourne, Australia, two vaccination hubs were closed down due to verbal and physical abuse from anti-vax protestors.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/m...f-abused/de4c5bbd-6848-4fba-b5ee-a1493716ba90

I really feel for healthcare workers caught up in this.

 

It's not stupidity. It's human nature to lash out at the closest person when one is feeling scared and hopeless. The people that won't accept the vaccine hold the position they are doing the right thing. They aren't knowingly being negligent or ignorant. They are just frightened for a myriad of reasons and it's hard to ask questions or talk about one's fears if we are met with ridicule, dismissal and sometimes anger from the people we should be able to talk to about these things - our medical care providers.

 

These people don't get vaccinated because they've seen the info on vaccine-related injuries and deaths.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-pandemic-began.592174/page-2#post-1072965101

Health professionals act like they haven't seen it. I know a doctor and he refuses to even look at any of the stuff I try to show him.

 

How about rehire all those hospital workers who were fired for refusing to be vaccinated and have them treat the unvaccinated patients in a separate special area.

Analogous to how there used to be separate smoking and non-smoking sections in various public places.

 

Typical lay person "brilliant" idea [insert rolling eyes here] - a hospital should not be fostering situations of heightened contagion that can make people sick. That special area of yours would be Covid-rich and these unvaccinated staff would be falling ill right and left with high viral loads due to heightened exposure and many would die (before the vaccines, we saw young and healthy healthcare workers dying due to high viral loads causing more severe disease than what is expected for their age group and health status). Not to forget, they would need to go in and out in order to work there and would leave clouds of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol in corridors and halls and would end up contaminating other people including vulnerable patients. Hospitals are in the business of trying to prevent premature death, no trying to foster it.

It's as simple as this: a healthcare worker who doesn't believe in science has no business taking care of sick people. People who got fired = good riddance. They need to change to some other field since they are not prepared to be healthcare workers.

 

Hmmm, the same hospital workers that were hero’s for taking care of all those Covid patients since the start of this without a vaccine available? Hospital workers seeing the vaccinated with injuries and death and coming in with Covid? Hospital workers that already had a case of Covid and have greater immunity than the jabbed?

It is highly unethical to require an unapproved experimental treatment that can cause injury and death.

 

Ah.. I see the problem. Yahoo news. So this is the "justification" meme for folks to "see" why doctors shouldn't treat the unvaccinated.. And because yahoo makes money off of advertising, clicks for click bait like this are allowed to spread whatever misinformation the advocates want.

And we still haven't addressed the actual issue was folks, like Fauci, who thought gain of function was a really cool concept and spent billions of dollars on creating these viruses. But, it's the "unvaccinated" who are the problem...

 

Two things. Demonstrate that the vaccine in ANY WAY 1) stops the spread, or 2) vaccinates the individual from becoming infected or otherwise improves their outcomes.

If stupid is as stupid does who are the stupid ones again?

 

Its like a smoker blaming the doctors for getting lung cancer after smoking 3 packs a day for 30 years. Everything is always someone else fault, and personal responsibility went out the window some time ago.

 

Shall we shuttle 'contagious' people off to asylums? What wonderful memories that evokes for the less humane. After all, people who have received the vaccine wouldn't want the blunt reminder that what they received wasn't actually a vaccine by definition.

 

Frightened is the best adjective, along with highly misinformed, to describe those who've taken the dangerous shots.

Informed and skeptical are the best adjectives to describe those who don't take them.

Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. Wisdom from the ages.

Why take a dangerous shot for a virus that has a 99% survival rate? Trump and Biden may think it's a great idea, but they have vested and perverse interests.

 

It's also important to note that there are legitimate reasons for people not getting vaccinated. The left have not told us the truth. There have been 8,000 deaths shortly after receiving a Covid vaccine in the US alone, not to mentions tens of thousands of serious adverse reactions to the vaccines in the US alone. Now I agree that there are some pretty stupid and wild conspiracy theories out there regarding vaccines which are complete nonsense but there are also those legitimate reasons for not getting the vaccine as well and yet the left pedal misinformation themselves by hiding those facts from the public in their push to get everyone vaccinated. Horror stories are hidden from the public because they don't promote vaccinations.

 

No, of course not; when did I ever defend such thing? Wasn't I one of the posters who wanted Andrew Cuomo's head on a platter (metaphorically speaking, of course) for his sending Covid patients to nursing homes, and covering it up? That's precisely why I asked for his resignation. What I meant is that we shouldn't put unvaccinated WORKERS taking care of them because this will expose the unvaccinated workers to massive viral loads and a lot of people among them will get hurt, and then these workers will spread the virus to their own family members too. There's a reason why hospitals require the vaccine of healthcare workers as a condition of employment. And it's not politics. It's biology.

"Wasn't actually a vaccine by definition" - pffft... ridiculous claim. I happen to work with vaccines for almost four decades, and yes, these are vaccines, regardless of what your partisan pundits told you (and even if by some bogus strict definition they weren't, they still do the same job) What stupid point do you think you're making with this ridiculous cliam? They are just a step ahead in the progress of science: instead of introducing inactivated virus for example (like the CoronaVac from China did), the mRNA vaccines introduce instructions to make the S protein, which is the virus' Achilles Heel and by making neutralizing antibodies against the introduced S protein antigen, the immune response is more focused (instead of being spread out around several other viral proteins (M, N, E, etc.). But the principle is the same: you introduce to the immune system, a viral antigen. It is also faster to make the vaccines this way, and more flexible as you can adapt the vaccine-instructed S protein to new variants in the near future. As a matter of fact this "new" technology (actually it started being studied since 1987) is extremely promising and now that we have the first human mRNA vaccines, we'll make more for other pathogens and even hopefully for cancer.

This stupendous technology that is a real advancement in healthcare is what is being mocked by the ignorant... sad.

 

I didn't say you defended anything. Since people felt it necessary to shuttle sick people off to asylums in the past, and that is how 'unvaccinated' people are being treated today, it's perfectly logical to see what the 'vaccinated' want to do. Segregate and divide, belittle and marginalize.

A vaccine, by it's own definition, prevents a person from acquiring the disease. This 'vaccine' doesn't prevent it, it reduces the symptoms. The government and the supposed top doctor have been saying that from the beginning. So all your learned knowledge isn't applying the standing definition to what is actually happening.

If someone wants to get the injection, then have at it, I have no issue with it. If someone decides not to get the injection, I also have no issue with that. It's people who feel they have a right to make a decision for other people, most commonly without knowing anything about the person, their reasoning and applying their belief that they know what is better for someone then the person themselves.

If healthcare workers are willing to work with the uninjected, then that is their choice.

 

But it's pretty un-American to blame others for one's own mistakes.
Self-reflection is a very important virtue of highest western civilization.

 

You can just use the forum search function of this forum, look up the threads I created, and you'll find about 3 asking for Cuomo's resignation, and will easily recognize that I'm NOT one of the people that harbor the attitudes you're deploring.

No, this definition you are using is some sort of lay person definition, not a Virology/Immunology one. I'm an MD/PhD working with vaccines for almost 40 years since my graduation 41 years ago... I do know what I'm talking about. Consult my thread called State of the Vaccines that is pinned to the top of the Coronavirus Discussions subforum (not News, but Discussions), browse some of my posts there, and there is no way you won't recognize that I do know my way around vaccines.

There is no such definition in Immunology; better proof, the flu shot is a vaccine and it doesn't prevent people from getting the flu; in most years it just decreases symptoms and severity, exactly like the Covid-19 vaccines do.

There are multiple kinds of vaccines. Some prevent people from getting a disease and they yield life-long protection. Others merely decrease severity of symptoms and have a more transient effect. The latter situation doesn't disqualify them from being a vaccine.

Do you want the "standard" definition? What about Merriam-Webster's?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

So you can see that the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines perfectly fit the overall definition, and more precisely the 1b definition. Satisfied now?

Sure, that's ultimately their decision but it does affect orders so certain organizations may choose not to employ them; more on this, below).

Well, I'm not for vaccine mandates for the general population so you're preaching to the choir. I am, however, for the freedom of employers to determine conditions of employment to hire or retain employees. That's a rather conservative principle that most conservatives used to endorse; but now, given the politicized hysteria around the Covid-19 vaccines, they seem to have forgotten... These employer mandates by the way have always happen, as in, requiring proof of not having tuberculosis before hiring someone, or requiring vaccines such as tetanus, hep B, the flu shot, etc., depending on the nature of the business. I never saw conservatives say a peep about that, but now, suddenly, because it's the Covid vaccine, there's this uproar.

No, that's not THEIR choice. It's their EMPLOYER's choice. You can't just show up in a hospital and say "I'm willing to work here so I'm starting today." You have to submit an application, your credentials will be checked, and you'll be interviewed and will be given a set of conditions for employment. These may include a dress code and other appropriate ethical and moral behaviors (e.g. a prohibition of engaging in intimate relationships with patients), a urine drug screen, a tuberculosis screening, and yes, certain vaccinations (most hospitals require the flu shot and the Hep B shots, among others). Most hospitals are now requiring the Covid-19 shots too. So nobody is forcing the prospective employee to get one, but the hospitals reserve to themselves the option of NOT extending an offer of employment to the person who is applying but doesn't want to get the Covid-19 vaccine, or firing an existing employee who doesn't want to comply with a LEGAL condition of employment. Just yesterday Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in New York City fired 200 employees who failed to get vaccinated by their 9/28 deadline).

So it's entirely the HOSPITAL's decision, who to hire, who to keep hired, and where to allocate the employees. So a hospital's Infectious Disease Control Department won't typically want to throw into a Covid-19 yard, unvaccinated personnel, for two excellent reasons (and I'd venture a third one that is more lawyer-y and I'm no lawyer): One, they don't want to the personnel to get sick and die or get maimed and incapacitated (e.g., chronic shortness of breath from lung fibrosis post-Covid generating sick leave and expenses to get the person's absence covered), and two, they don't want infected employees to be spreading the illness to other sectors of the hospital, with an impact on hospital operations and bottom line. Most hospitals are private businesses and they are PERFECTLY entitled to setting their own conditions of employment, which are not an employee's decision.

And there's a third reason too: even if an unprotected employee were to say "I don't mind, put me to work in the Covid-19 unit" the hospital would still be liable for neglecting to protect the employee, if something then happened to that employee. I mean, they'd need a lawyer-proof written agreement with the employee... and why would they go through all this trouble if they can simply NOT hire that one, and hire instead a vaccinated employee?

Basically they say "here is what we require of people to whom we extend an offer of employment; if you don't fit or don't want to comply with these requirements, we won't be hiring or keeping you; feel free to go work elsewhere."

While this is abundantly clear for private hospitals, I'd say that even governmental hospitals are in sound grounds to require the same. Think of a VA hospital, for example. If a VA hospital didn't require vaccinations as a condition of employment unlike private hospitals, and the veterans they are caring for got sick from a contagious employee, one would then be arguing that the VA hospitals are considering the veterans as an inferior sub-class not entitled to the same protections enjoyed by a patient in a private hospital.

 

Did or did not people in the past put people in an asylum because of an infectious disease? A simple yes or no answer. I didn't say 'you' as an individual supported it, it is what a number of people are promoting, that uninjected people should be shunned, banned from public space and unable to find employment with a larger employer, and should be fired from their current employer for not allowing the injection or continuous testing.

As to the definition of 'vaccine': Why did CDC change definition for ‘vaccine’? Agency explains | Miami Herald

 

What do you want me to say about some event in the past regarding asylums? What I can tell you is that I wasn't responsible for those past actions, LOL.

CDC definition: if they phrased it poorly the first time, it's not my problem either. Their current definition now matches the dictionary definition. And most importantly, matches the Immunology definition. I don't work for the CDC and I'm not at any obligation to defend their poor phrasing of the past. Maybe they need to hire a better writer for their web pages? What I do know from extensive training and extensive work with vaccines, is that not all vaccines 100% avoid infection but this fact in itself doesn't disqualify them from being vaccines. That remains true regardless of how some organization chooses to phrase their definitions and their guidance.

Besides, like I said, this is a stupid semantic point. The important thing is that these vaccines are doing what is most important: they largely prevent hospitalizations and death. What else should we be expecting? We may have developed too much of an expectation, but do remember that even when the Pfizer studies (which were done before Delta) were first divulged, the efficacy was 95%, not 100%, so 1 in 20 people still got the the virus despite the vaccine, so nobody in the scientific community ever pretended that the vaccine was 100% efficacious. Of course this was made worse by Delta.

Remember when we didn't even know if we could make a coronavirus vaccine? We had not been successful before, in making one, so when we got to work to see if we could make one against the SARS-CoV-2, we didn't even know if it would be possible. Or, remember when we said that we'd be thrilled if we achieved a 70% efficacy? If expectations had never been increased (unreasonably) from the initial Pfizer and Moderna studies that posted a 95% and 94% efficacy, respectively, people would be delighted that these vaccines seem to be about 80% effective against Delta.

But I can only talk about what the medico-scientific community said (that at best it was a 95% efficacy to the ancestral strain, not 100%; subsequently that rate dropped further due to variant strains), and you can't make us responsible for how politicians distort what we say and bend it to fit their own agenda (and I consider Fauci to be a politician, by the way, and Walensky too, the moment she accepted the job of heading the CDC). And that includes the CDC. In the past they used to be more scientifically-driven and less politically-influenced. Regrettably, this no longer seems to be the case, with both the current and the past administrations having tried (and having partially succeeded) to put pressure on the CDC.

So, again, the medico-scientific community, through published results of phase III trials, has always indicated that the vaccines against Covid-19 weren't 100% protective. Some politicians then said that vaccinated people didn't need any precautions and could unmask at will, WHICH I CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE (at the time, the pressure was that saying so would convince more people to accept the vaccine, regardless of it being true or not - then the CDC went from an appropriately prudent stance, to caving in and issuing the statement the White House was expecting) and I said so at the time (including in posts of mine, here). Delta was looming, it was running over European countries, predictably it was about to run us over... and the freaking CDC was saying "nothing to see, people, don't worry if you're vaccinated"??? That wasn't scientific. That was political.

So, yeah, the CDC has made mistakes (although this doesn't mean that 100% of what they say are mistakes, lies, and obfuscation - they still say a fair amount of correct facts and guidance; just, it's no longer all correct and no longer all scientifically-driven, unfortunately). But you have to understand that the mistakes don't come from the career scientists. They happen when politicians interfere.

 

"Phrased it poorly the first time'?? It's been a standard dictionary definition for oh, at least a couple of decades, until the CDC decided to change the definition. Not their wording, the actual definition.

But since you like to dance around answers, take into consideration that it was originally promoted as preventing COVID. Since the CDC, Fauci and the medical world have changed their minds multiple times on definitions, standards, recommendations and projections, any person with two brain cells will start questioning the veracity of their statements.

If someone wants to get an injection, go for it. If someone decides not to get an injection, that is their choice also. This blather than those who don't choose an injection are somehow the cause of the injected people getting sick is a tunnel vision position and many seem to be denying the fact that injected people can and do carry and infect others.

 

if the hospital put only unvaccinated working with covid patients... that would probably be a lawsuit waiting to happen

 

99% of the people now in hospitals is the unvaccinated, that shows the vaccine improves outcomes

 

The poor phrasing is to say that vaccines confer immunity. It's preferable to say that they train the immune system to be better prepared to fight off pathogens. Some vaccines confer lifelong true immunity but not all. Again, that doesn't mean that the ones that don't, are not vaccines. Again, that's semantics. In real life all that matters is that whatever you want to call these shots, vaccines or something else, they work, and they dramatically decrease the number of hospitalizations and deaths.

How am I dancing around? Didn't I just tell you that I don't trust Fauci and Walensky for being politicians more than scientists, and that the CDC has issued mistaken guidance? And by the way, the vaccines DO prevent Covid for certain persons; just not for all persons, which again, is not something we ever indicated. NOBODY in the scientific community has ever pretended that the efficacy rate of these vaccines is 100%.

No, that's not true. Just look at the percentages. Yes, vaccinated people can carry the infection and can infect others... but do so at much smaller rates than unvaccinated people. So, the bulk, the majority of the transmission going on comes from unvaccinated people. The fact that the vaccines are not 100% protective does not negate the fact that still, the majority of transmission comes from the unvaccinated. Just recently the CDC commented upon a British study, comparing households that have one and only one vaccinated person and that person still got Covid; how many household members did that person then infect? This was compared to other households with no vaccinated people, and one of them gets Covid; how many household members did that unvaccinated person infect? Well the latter infected twice as many people than the vaccinated person, despite both situations involving intimate and prolonged contact. And given that the contagion them balloons exponentially, just this simple study shows that the unvaccinated are more responsible for the spread, than the vaccinated. And if you think that twice as much is no big deal, do understand that first, it is because what happens next is exponential, and second, most people in the UK got the less efficacious AstraZeneca shot so if a similar study got done here, the numbers would likely be even more favorable to the vaccinated because our vaccines are more protective than the AstraZeneca.

While I don't have that link on me right now, I think it was published on the CDC site so it can be checked out.[/quote]

 

Exactly, a point I already made.

And how would these employees get confined to that unit? They'd have cafeteria lunch time, they'd have smoking breaks, they'd have to physically walk through the corridors to get to the Covid unit... therefore they'd be exposing other employees, too, and other vulnerable patients (unvaccinated potentially contagious employee would be walking the corridors and halls together with patients being transported back and forth, etc.).

No, this is a boneheaded idea. Healthcare workers in the middle of a freaking pandemic while free, safe, and effective vaccines do exist, have no business near a hospital. If they don't believe in science they shouldn't be healthcare workers to start with, given that healthcare is a science-driven human activity.