Where should we treat the unvaxxed?

How long did the patients live afterwards?

 

You are getting frustrated. LOL.

 

You do not represent "all learned professionals", dude...

There are MANY "learned professionals" who completely and utterly disagree with your takes on COVID and COVID treatment.

Get off your high horse.

 

Not a lot. This thread had some humor in my posts.

 

How about a special section in the hospital?

Just like in the old days they used to have smoking and non-smoking sections in public places and restaurants.

Maybe this would even allow unvaccinated nurses to continue to keep their job.

 

Question: If the vaccine isn't preventing the people in the hospital who have been vaccinated from getting it, then what makes you think the vaccine will be so likely to prevent the nurse who is attending those patients from getting it?

 

If vaccines are effective why should a vaxed Dr care if his patient is not vaxed?

 

Or put the picky complaining patients in the tents.

 

The vaccine only doesn't prevent people from getting it in your anti-vaxxer mind. The vaccine dramatically decreases the rate of infection, 6-11 fold in most studies. But sure, it doesn't prevent ALL cases and we never pretended it did. And then, it prevents these cases from becoming serious enough to get to the hospital, 16-fold in a recent Australian study. And again, sure, it doesn't prevent all cases from becoming serious (especially because this is a pre-selected population; those who are old and infirm and immunocompromised so they failed the vaccine, and/or were too far away from their basic vaccination so their antibodies faded). Your anti-vaxxer mind also doesn't want to acknowledge that a booster restores protection, bumping up neutralizing antibodies 25-fold. So, no, the vaccines are not failing. Finally, while the percentage of vaccinate people in hospitals increased due to the factors above, you continue to ignore the denominator. The breakthrough infections DIVIDED by the HUGE number of vaccinated people CONTINUES to represent a tiny percentage of the total, so yes, again, the vaccines did prevent infections in a HUGE number of people.

Do you want vaccines that are 100% protective? Move to La-La-land, all colorful with plenty of wishful thinking and reality-denial. Vaccines are not perfect and we have never pretended they were, but they are a HUGE help in this pandemic, and it's thanks to people like you that more people are not benefitting from their advantages. People who intentionally post a picture of a girl with chickenpox from the 60's, and pretend it's a 2021 picture of a reaction to Covid-19 vaccines.

Huge panic around Omicron... have you noticed that the first studies from South Africa, Germany, and Sweden showed that a booster yields sufficient neutralizing antibodies to zap even Omicron?

What to do of the fading immunity? It is true that humoral immunity (antibodies) fades after several months (thus the breakthrough infections) and it's a bit concerning that we need to boost, because repeated boosting may run into some problems. But there are two good sides, too. One, there is cellular immunity too, and that one seems to last longer. Two, we are gaining time, until the new and effective antivirals, especially Paxlovid that showed 89% efficacy, can be analyzed by the FDA and hopefully get an EUA. Once they become widely available, vaccines won't be as important, because if a person catches Covid, the person can then take 5 days of Paxlovid by the mouth at home, with an efficacy similar or better (the latter, in the case of immune-weak persons) than the vaccines. But we are not there yet so the vaccines remain our best tool. The thing is, Paxlovid works for all variants present and future because no coronavirus can replicate without the enzyme it inhibits; it's not something that mutates, unlike the spike protein target by the vaccines.

And also, both monoclonal antibodies and mRNA vaccines can be tweaked to adapt to new and antigenic-drifting variants like Omicron. The monoclonal antibodies are handy for people with weak immune systems who don't benefit much from vaccines.

OK, so, above, that's the treatment plan for those who believe in science; you know, rational and well-informed, non-misleading people.

For antivaxxers like you, we should set up the tent "hospitals" manned by Google searchers, and plenty of useless ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, UV light anal probes, tinfoil hats, infusions of bleach, borax baths and the like. It's unfortunate that the mortality in these tents would be probably close to 100% but hey, that's what your people prefer to believe in, right?

 

Oh no, the tents are for the anti-vaxxers. Picky complaining vaxxers should be treated in the main building, by the science-believing professionals with treatments that actually do yield better clinical outcomes.

 

So called doctor spreads the B.S. again.
Cumulative deaths is clearly on the decline in Iran, India, Russia and Brazil (countries with low vaccinations).

UK, US, Spain cumulative deaths slope points to the sky.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/

 

The above graph is misleading, because some of those countries have much lower population numbers than others.

Also the number of cases in India and Brazil is probably far higher but they are Third World countries so testing rates are lower.

 

It could be that they just gave up and stop pay attention to COVID.
I guess that exactly what China did, so their COVID incidence is very low.

In any case there is nothing that show us that vaccines provide any help.

 

The unvaccinated who are more likely to contract and develop far more serious and deadly cases of Covid should be treated exactly like everyone else by the caregivers upon whom they place an unnecessary burden.

Disgust and resentment at willful ignorance is unavoidable, but medical professionals must not allow that to affect the quality of care they provide.

 

Of course we disagree at what exactly represents "willful ignorance", don't we?

Hopefully you mean that medical professionals should not let their opinions of disgust affect the quality of care they provide to all, like the opening poster obviously does.

 

You clearly didn’t read his post. Re read the first few sentences.

This post would have been more appropriate in the humor section.

 

The opening poster seems to be taking out derangement on the unvaccinated, and probably (although not stated) conflating them with Trump supporters.

 

Kindly tell me how you get that from the first 16 words. Please be specific.

 

I refer to the ideologues who defy accepted medical science and who constitute the great majority of covid hospital admissions, intensive care, and deaths.

 

Unfortunately we disagree on what that is.

And there's also censorship and control and even an environment of closed-mindedness and fear among those who are mostly responsible for doing these medical studies. But my argument here is not simply, or even mostly, based on that.


You keep claiming things are "science", when they are not.
Science often doesn't give us simple straight forward certain answers, and this is such a case.

Imagine if we removed all interpretation and opinion and people were only allowed to see the actual science. It would be meaningless to 99% of people. They wouldn't know what it meant or how to assemble the different pieces together.

 

This thread is a bit sarcastic and humoristic, and does not reflect my attitude at work in the real world.

 

I don't understand how such educated people cannot understand simple effective communication to others.

If you want people to listen to what you have to say it helps if you don't talk down to them, constantly shove your credentials in their face, belittle any questions and opinions they may have, and just act as though you are the end all be all authority on the subject above and beyond reproach.

I guess a little humbleness can't be learned in college.

But it sure seems ego and arrogance is in abundant supply.

 

....

 

But with high compliance with mask wearing