|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On January 23 2023 22:02 BlackJack wrote:
I didn’t need to Google it because I already knew that several states placed booster mandates for healthcare workers. Your response was to mistakenly call them hospital protocols and when that fell flat you stole JimmiC’s argument that if a mandate was placed and rescinded before the deadline then it never existed in the first place. Yet even if we accept both those arguments at face value you’re still wrong because Eri gave another example that neither applies to.
Get a booster or get tested twice a week or lose your job.
Or as DPB calls it, “boosters were only loosely recommended”
And yet, despite DPB now asking 3 times for a single source, you have provided nothing.
|
On January 23 2023 23:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 22:40 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 21:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 19:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. I have no idea how common it is compared to other places, but essentially, aside from the at-risk-groups, it's just considered something you deal with and accept as part of life.  I've had it like 3-4 times during adulthood and I'm knocked out for 1-2 days and then spend another 2-3 days chilling and recovering, and then life goes back to normal. I mean, the 'it's just a flu' arguments circulating when covid appeared were obviously wrong - but had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies, because the flu is something most people manage to deal with just fine. That's your opinion. There are many people who absolutely do not have an easy time with the flu at all - or more aptly put: they feel like hell. The main symptoms can last a week, even a month in rare cases. Roughly 100 000 Americans died from the flu during the 1968 flu outbreak (no, not with the flu. From the flu). That represents 0.5% of the population.1 to 4 million people died globally. Instead the main thing people remember from that time is Woodstock in 1969. The outbreak lasted until 1970. The reason why the death count was so high even in America was because, yes, nothing was being done about the outbreak by the government. Literally nothing, despite healthcare workers asking for help. Wanna make a guess how many lives could've been saved with some covid-style measures in place? So no, you're wrong. People wouldn't have been right if it had been more like the flu. The truth is that people were already being too lax about the flu, even today, and those same people act as if covid isn't a big deal either. They're wrong in both cases. tl;dr Just because many people accept something as normal doesn't mean it's a good idea to tolerate it. Many people are often wrong. And it's important that they face opposition for their views so they don't feel instantly offended at the idea of public health measures in response to infectious outbreaks. Those people are all free to take a flu shot. But Norwegian medical professionals do not recommend it for the general population, they recommend it for people above a certain age or with certain preexisting conditions. I haven't even given 'an opinion' so I dunno where I'm 'wrong'. You did voice an opinion right there: "[...] had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies [...]" This is what I responded to. Many people would disagree with you. The covid policies would've had a point regardless. So this is your opinion, not a fact. What anti-covid policies do you want to see in place for a general flu season? If it's anything beyond mask wearing I don't see many people agreeing.
We've just barely avoided another potential pandemic with monkeypox due to actions taken almost too late for and with the gay community. We're still trying to make covid-19 more manageable. The flu isn't special either, it can get just as bad as covid. Prevention is a better measure than fighting the symptoms, that's why Japan has a face mask culture against infectious diseases. They're right, and we're wrong.
If you want an answer, it's always going to be the same one: we should act before it's too late. People - and that includes even the WHO - didn't learn much from covid-19. That needs to change.
|
On January 23 2023 23:55 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 22:43 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more. This is totally unrelated to covid: Maybe less restrictions and more gratitude for healthcare workers would be better? What would you rather have? No one to care for you or someone who MIGHT have an infection but cares for you?
A healthcare worker who actually cares one bit for my health would not complain about getting their nose or mouth swabbed twice a week. My brother and his co-workers had to do it daily, and he chose to do it twice per day to also keep his family better protected. And no, he's not a medicine nutjob who takes every pill that's being offered to him. He just understood that it's not a big deal for a mature adult.
|
On January 24 2023 01:55 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 23:55 sharkie wrote:On January 23 2023 22:43 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more. This is totally unrelated to covid: Maybe less restrictions and more gratitude for healthcare workers would be better? What would you rather have? No one to care for you or someone who MIGHT have an infection but cares for you? A healthcare worker who actually cares one bit for my health would not complain about getting their nose or mouth swabbed twice a week. My brother and his co-workers had to do it daily, and he chose to do it twice per day to also keep his family better protected. And no, he's not a medicine nutjob who takes every pill that's being offered to him. He just understood that it's not a big deal for a mature adult.
Agreed. I as a teacher had to do a self-test every day for months, too. It just isn't a big deal?
However, i also agree that healthcare workers could generally do with some more gratitude. Specifically monetary gratitude and "not completely overworking" them gratitude from the people employing them.
I don't see how that is related to them doing a test against an ongoing pandemic.
|
It isn't related at all and I agreethat it isnt a big deal.
It would be just nice to appreciate healthcare workers much more instead of imposing more and more rules on them.
And being happy that any of them fired for such a stupid reason does not help at all
|
Well, yes of course. Nothing against a decent nurse, that field is underappreciated and it's very tough. A few of my friends and relatives work or used to work as nurses and it can be literally backbreaking.
|
On January 23 2023 20:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 19:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 07:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 05:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. At least here in Norway, the medical community is not recommending yearly flu vaccines in general - they only recommend them for the elderly or otherwise vulnerable, and people working with health care. Same with booster number 4. This encompasses somewhere close to 30% of the population - but 70% are not recommended to take influenza vaccines (and are not recommended a fourth booster, at least not yet.) Any particular reason why they wouldn't want to prevent roughly half of the flu infections in a given year? "While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm#:~:text=While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can,used to make flu vaccines. Maybe flu isn't that common in Norway? Or it's dealt with so competently reactively that it doesn't pay to be proactive, or something? In the United States, the flu causes quite a bit of problems. I have no idea how common it is compared to other places, but essentially, aside from the at-risk-groups, it's just considered something you deal with and accept as part of life. I've had it like 3-4 times during adulthood and I'm knocked out for 1-2 days and then spend another 2-3 days chilling and recovering, and then life goes back to normal. I mean, the 'it's just a flu' arguments circulating when covid appeared were obviously wrong - but had they been correct, there'd be no point in any of the covid-related policies, because the flu is something most people manage to deal with just fine. That's your opinion. There are many people who absolutely do not have an easy time with the flu at all - or more aptly put: they feel like hell. The main symptoms can last a week, even a month in rare cases. Roughly 100 000 Americans died from the flu during the 1968 flu outbreak (no, not with the flu. From the flu). That represents 0.5% of the population.1 to 4 million people died globally. Instead the main thing people remember from that time is Woodstock in 1969. The outbreak lasted until 1970. The reason why the death count was so high even in America was because, yes, nothing was being done about the outbreak by the government. Literally nothing, despite healthcare workers asking for help. Wanna make a guess how many lives could've been saved with some covid-style measures in place? So no, you're wrong. People wouldn't have been right if it had been more like the flu. The truth is that people were already being too lax about the flu, even today, and those same people act as if covid isn't a big deal either. They're wrong in both cases. tl;dr Just because many people accept something as normal doesn't mean it's a good idea to tolerate it. Many people are often wrong. And it's important that they face opposition for their views so they don't feel instantly offended at the idea of public health measures in response to infectious outbreaks.
What makes this really complicated is that lives are never "saved", death is only delayed. If you have 3 mild flu seasons in a row, the 4th one is very likely to carry a lot of the "survivors" with them.
For this reason, counting deaths of elderly will seldom make you come up with good policies. You will be chasing the inevitable for an immense cost.
Even Covid came after a series of mild flu seasons, which made it hit harder. On the flipside, if many die one year, next year is likely to be milder, as the weakest are stronger.
|
Some people themselfs (my mother in law) think the tests themselfs are harmfull because they contain some sort of chemical that apparently is super-duper dangerous... Some people are just impossible to deal with xD
|
The part of the test you interact with is basically a Q-tip. Even if the test chemicals were really harmful (they are not), you don't actually put those into your nose.
|
On January 24 2023 00:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 00:04 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 22:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 22:02 BlackJack wrote:
I didn’t need to Google it because I already knew that several states placed booster mandates for healthcare workers. Your response was to mistakenly call them hospital protocols and when that fell flat you stole JimmiC’s argument that if a mandate was placed and rescinded before the deadline then it never existed in the first place. Yet even if we accept both those arguments at face value you’re still wrong because Eri gave another example that neither applies to.
Get a booster or get tested twice a week or lose your job.
Or as DPB calls it, “boosters were only loosely recommended” Asking you for evidence isn't taking the opposing position. Also, he gave one example, and it's a totally valid one. Not another example. Your example (New York) was wrong. You provided zero states. All I did was ask for you to back up your claim, so saying I was "wrong" is a very misguided attack. Here's our recap about covid booster mandates, with direct quotes: You: "Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job." Me: "Do you have a specific state with a source?" You: "There are several states that required COVID boosters specifically for healthcare workers" and then you posted an article about New York not requiring covid boosters. Me: "please don't say things like "required by law" if you don't mean it / if it's not true" You: "Several states have required healthcare workers to get a booster shot." Me: "Can you please provide evidence? What law was passed in which state, mandating the third shot (covid booster), under the threat of otherwise being fired? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just asking you to provide an example." Drone: "Seems like New Mexico was doing it, but with that exception, it'd be hospitals or universities making the choice independently." You: And then you conceded that unvaccinated healthcare workers could also be regularly tested, rather than be automatically fired for staying unvaccinated... and said I was "still wrong" lol. Many states shut down, businesses closed their doors, and hospitals were overwhelmed during the beginning and height of the pandemic. With the emergence and availability of the first two doses - the original covid vaccine - many areas slowly were able to regain control (while others, sadly, were not). There were significant pushes for people to get vaccinated as soon as possible, including some states and businesses going so far as to require people to get the original two doses of the vaccine. By the time the booster had rolled around, those pushes had eased; perhaps it was because more areas were successfully reopening, perhaps it was because many hospitals had regained their footing, perhaps it was because there were now less-severe covid strains, perhaps it was because the booster wasn't as effective as the original vaccine, perhaps it was because states and employers knew it would be much harder to enforce a mandate for a third shot (the booster), perhaps it was due to other things... But there was absolutely a much more relaxed approach when it came to boosters, hence why I said that - relative to the first two doses - the third dose was loosely recommended. I had written this: "They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential." The fact that approximately one state (according to the research collectively done by you and Drone and me) had actually followed through on this "get the booster or you're fired" level of severity that you asserted - and that it's New Mexico, with a population of just 2 million and only a fraction of that being healthcare workers who were actually subject to such a state law - I don't see sufficient evidence to believe your claim. Maybe you're secretly keeping a list of states hidden from the rest of us, ready to drop it now that I'm asking you for the 3rd (4th? 5th? I forget) time, but I'm pretty skeptical. Just repeatedly insisting that rescinding a mandate before the final deadline means the mandate never existed doesn’t actually make it true. Plenty of people weren’t going to wait until the strike of midnight on the day of the deadline to find out if they still had a job. If I were king and I made a law that said if u don’t do X by Jan 1 2024 you go to prison and then I said on Dec 31st 2023 “ok nevermind you don’t have to do X” then you come here defending me saying I never mandated anyone to do X? Seems like a ridiculous opinion but you are entitled to it. Was it rescinded on midnight? Because according to the source you posted it ranged from weeks before to 3 days. Also, any actual numbers of the people effected? Because it is not the numbers you are throwing around. it was in the high 90%'s of people who agreed with the mandates within the health field. Putting pressure on people was the goal. It was objectively better for them to have it and objectively better for the patients. This is just fact. And like real fact not the "facts" that get pushed some times. Some accuracy rather than hyperbole would be a nice change.
Does it matter when the deadline for the booster mandate was extended? Is there some arbitrary amount of time that would swing it for you? If so please tell.
|
On January 24 2023 02:00 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 01:55 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 23:55 sharkie wrote:On January 23 2023 22:43 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more. This is totally unrelated to covid: Maybe less restrictions and more gratitude for healthcare workers would be better? What would you rather have? No one to care for you or someone who MIGHT have an infection but cares for you? A healthcare worker who actually cares one bit for my health would not complain about getting their nose or mouth swabbed twice a week. My brother and his co-workers had to do it daily, and he chose to do it twice per day to also keep his family better protected. And no, he's not a medicine nutjob who takes every pill that's being offered to him. He just understood that it's not a big deal for a mature adult. Agreed. I as a teacher had to do a self-test every day for months, too. It just isn't a big deal? However, i also agree that healthcare workers could generally do with some more gratitude. Specifically monetary gratitude and "not completely overworking" them gratitude from the people employing them. I don't see how that is related to them doing a test against an ongoing pandemic.
Just to clarify, the mandates that require vaccination or covid testing aren't typically of the "just do a self-test and we'll take your word for it" variety. Of course a self-test is no big deal, compared to say working 16 hour shifts on back to back days and having to drive to a clinic or testing site in between.
|
On January 24 2023 03:57 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 02:00 Simberto wrote:On January 24 2023 01:55 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 23:55 sharkie wrote:On January 23 2023 22:43 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more. This is totally unrelated to covid: Maybe less restrictions and more gratitude for healthcare workers would be better? What would you rather have? No one to care for you or someone who MIGHT have an infection but cares for you? A healthcare worker who actually cares one bit for my health would not complain about getting their nose or mouth swabbed twice a week. My brother and his co-workers had to do it daily, and he chose to do it twice per day to also keep his family better protected. And no, he's not a medicine nutjob who takes every pill that's being offered to him. He just understood that it's not a big deal for a mature adult. Agreed. I as a teacher had to do a self-test every day for months, too. It just isn't a big deal? However, i also agree that healthcare workers could generally do with some more gratitude. Specifically monetary gratitude and "not completely overworking" them gratitude from the people employing them. I don't see how that is related to them doing a test against an ongoing pandemic. Just to clarify, the mandates that require vaccination or covid testing aren't typically of the "just do a self-test and we'll take your word for it" variety. Of course a self-test is no big deal, compared to say working 16 hour shifts on back to back days and having to drive to a clinic or testing site in between.
Many businesses, such as schools and hospitals, often have on-site testing. No need to drive anywhere else when there's an area, resources, and a person at your work who's available
|
On January 24 2023 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 03:57 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 02:00 Simberto wrote:On January 24 2023 01:55 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 23:55 sharkie wrote:On January 23 2023 22:43 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more. This is totally unrelated to covid: Maybe less restrictions and more gratitude for healthcare workers would be better? What would you rather have? No one to care for you or someone who MIGHT have an infection but cares for you? A healthcare worker who actually cares one bit for my health would not complain about getting their nose or mouth swabbed twice a week. My brother and his co-workers had to do it daily, and he chose to do it twice per day to also keep his family better protected. And no, he's not a medicine nutjob who takes every pill that's being offered to him. He just understood that it's not a big deal for a mature adult. Agreed. I as a teacher had to do a self-test every day for months, too. It just isn't a big deal? However, i also agree that healthcare workers could generally do with some more gratitude. Specifically monetary gratitude and "not completely overworking" them gratitude from the people employing them. I don't see how that is related to them doing a test against an ongoing pandemic. Just to clarify, the mandates that require vaccination or covid testing aren't typically of the "just do a self-test and we'll take your word for it" variety. Of course a self-test is no big deal, compared to say working 16 hour shifts on back to back days and having to drive to a clinic or testing site in between. Many businesses, such as schools and hospitals, often have on-site testing. No need to drive anywhere else when there's an area, resources, and a person at your work who's available
And i am pretty sure that especially the places that employ healthcare workers have testing facilities in place.
For me as a teacher the situation was a bit specific because the government generally trusts me to fulfill my duties. But i wouldn't have any problem with a different person supervising the test or whatever, it would just have been slightly more hassle for the school administration.
|
|
|
On January 24 2023 04:40 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2023 03:57 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 02:00 Simberto wrote:On January 24 2023 01:55 Magic Powers wrote:On January 23 2023 23:55 sharkie wrote:On January 23 2023 22:43 Magic Powers wrote:
Regarding testing twice a week: if a healthcare worker refuses to do such a basic, non-invasive thing for the sake of their patients, then they have no business working in that field. I'm very glad that such people get fired and I hope it happens more. This is totally unrelated to covid: Maybe less restrictions and more gratitude for healthcare workers would be better? What would you rather have? No one to care for you or someone who MIGHT have an infection but cares for you? A healthcare worker who actually cares one bit for my health would not complain about getting their nose or mouth swabbed twice a week. My brother and his co-workers had to do it daily, and he chose to do it twice per day to also keep his family better protected. And no, he's not a medicine nutjob who takes every pill that's being offered to him. He just understood that it's not a big deal for a mature adult. Agreed. I as a teacher had to do a self-test every day for months, too. It just isn't a big deal? However, i also agree that healthcare workers could generally do with some more gratitude. Specifically monetary gratitude and "not completely overworking" them gratitude from the people employing them. I don't see how that is related to them doing a test against an ongoing pandemic. Just to clarify, the mandates that require vaccination or covid testing aren't typically of the "just do a self-test and we'll take your word for it" variety. Of course a self-test is no big deal, compared to say working 16 hour shifts on back to back days and having to drive to a clinic or testing site in between. Many businesses, such as schools and hospitals, often have on-site testing. No need to drive anywhere else when there's an area, resources, and a person at your work who's available And i am pretty sure that especially the places that employ healthcare workers have testing facilities in place..
Maybe in your country where healthcare is a public service but here in the US, not so much. It costs money to run a testing site and testing employees that either want a test or are trying to avoid a booster dose isn’t very profitable.
|
Oh, we had testing for everyone for quite a while here, independent of your vaccination status.
But yes, of course, an actually working healthcare system is quite helpful.
|
|
|
On January 23 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 10:23 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. The 3rd shot was not just “loosely recommended.” Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job. A state passed a law mandating "If you don't get the covid vaccination booster, you're not allowed to have a job anymore"? Perhaps you're referring to a private employer mandating the vaccine for their own business, or a state-run public facility mandating the vaccine for itself? The rules created for a business or organization are not the same thing as passing actual laws. Do you have a specific state with a source? I did find examples of the opposite, though: Some states passed laws preventing employers from requiring vaccinations. The irony, of course, is that this "big government overreach" move was primarily done by Republican states. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-30/these-states-are-banning-covid-19-vaccine-requirements 2. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/11-states-banning-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-how-it-affects-healthcare-workers.html
It's here isn't it? This is just for California but such documents exist for other states also.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Health-Care-Worker-Vaccine-Requirement.aspx
2. All workers currently eligible for boosters, who provide services or work in facilities described in subdivision 1(a) must be "fully vaccinated and boosted" for COVID-19 receiving all recommended doses of the primary series of vaccines and a vaccine booster dose pursuant to Table A below.
|
On January 24 2023 18:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 10:23 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. The 3rd shot was not just “loosely recommended.” Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job. A state passed a law mandating "If you don't get the covid vaccination booster, you're not allowed to have a job anymore"? Perhaps you're referring to a private employer mandating the vaccine for their own business, or a state-run public facility mandating the vaccine for itself? The rules created for a business or organization are not the same thing as passing actual laws. Do you have a specific state with a source? I did find examples of the opposite, though: Some states passed laws preventing employers from requiring vaccinations. The irony, of course, is that this "big government overreach" move was primarily done by Republican states. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-30/these-states-are-banning-covid-19-vaccine-requirements 2. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/11-states-banning-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-how-it-affects-healthcare-workers.html It's here isn't it? This is just for California but such documents exist for other states also. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Health-Care-Worker-Vaccine-Requirement.aspxShow nested quote +
2. All workers currently eligible for boosters, who provide services or work in facilities described in subdivision 1(a) must be "fully vaccinated and boosted" for COVID-19 receiving all recommended doses of the primary series of vaccines and a vaccine booster dose pursuant to Table A below.
The page doesn't make any mention of the consequences in case of non-compliance. Only exemptions are mentioned.
|
On January 24 2023 18:56 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 18:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 23 2023 12:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 10:23 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2023 04:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 23 2023 03:06 sharkie wrote:
I think its fair to say that the first two shots definitely helped but third was very controversal and 4th was just useless They're all controversial politically, because of anti-vaxxers, but I don't know if it's fair to say that the 3rd and 4th shots were medically controversial. They're definitely less helpful than the first two (but less useful is not "useless"), which is why the additional two boosters were loosely recommended as opposed to super-crisis-mode-we-still-need-to-get-everything-under-control requests like the first two, but the first two set a pretty high bar and were much more influential. Within this thread, we've all shared some data showing that the 3rd shot (first booster) had some nice short-term benefits, but definitely wasn't as effective as the first two shots; I imagine that the 4th shot is similarly "decent, but not the end of the world if you skip it". Looking forward: I'm guessing that we'll start to see annual boosters based on that year's current covid strains, which would mean that getting yearly covid vaccines would be much like yearly flu vaccines: certainly recommended by the medical community, but not mandated by anyone. The 3rd shot was not just “loosely recommended.” Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job. A state passed a law mandating "If you don't get the covid vaccination booster, you're not allowed to have a job anymore"? Perhaps you're referring to a private employer mandating the vaccine for their own business, or a state-run public facility mandating the vaccine for itself? The rules created for a business or organization are not the same thing as passing actual laws. Do you have a specific state with a source? I did find examples of the opposite, though: Some states passed laws preventing employers from requiring vaccinations. The irony, of course, is that this "big government overreach" move was primarily done by Republican states. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-30/these-states-are-banning-covid-19-vaccine-requirements 2. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/11-states-banning-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-how-it-affects-healthcare-workers.html It's here isn't it? This is just for California but such documents exist for other states also. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Health-Care-Worker-Vaccine-Requirement.aspx
2. All workers currently eligible for boosters, who provide services or work in facilities described in subdivision 1(a) must be "fully vaccinated and boosted" for COVID-19 receiving all recommended doses of the primary series of vaccines and a vaccine booster dose pursuant to Table A below.
The page doesn't make any mention of the consequences in case of non-compliance. Only exemptions are mentioned.
I noticed that part too:
"3. Workers may be exempt from the vaccination requirements under sections (1) and (2) only upon providing the operator of the facility a declination form, signed by the individual, stating either of the following: (1) the worker is declining vaccination based on Religious Beliefs, or (2) the worker is excused from receiving any COVID-19 vaccine due to Qualifying Medical Reasons."
Does anyone have any experience or data about how easy/hard it is to avoid a work mandate for religious reasons? I'm unfamiliar with the concept, but I consistently see states include exemptions of certain rules if they go against one's religion or sincerely held beliefs. How does that work, exactly? Do a lot of people use this as a workaround / What's the chance that they're successful? (I'm also curious about if one could BS the second option, a Qualifying Medical Reason, but I think that might be harder to do if there's already a list of what is, and isn't, a QMR. I'm not well-informed about this option either though.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
