|
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 24 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 04:40 Simberto wrote: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. I doubt that is true. For exanple businesses often run flu shot clinics, because the clinics are cheaper than the missed days are, both the plan costs and the loss of productivity. Now if you have a very small number of people impacted then it might not make economic sense, but that would mean millions were not impacted. Are you saying there was no testing at places where tgis large group of healthcare workers required testing? I will look it up as it makes no sense logistically. Whoever is profiting would want them as close to their large client base as possible. But I want to confirm before the facts change. Edit: looks like less then before, but tons of testing options first place I looked. Tons are medical centers and doctors offices. Some bigger ones are closing due to lack of demand. https://sf.gov/drop-testing
Yeah businesses run flu-shot clinics to get their employees vaccinated. These testing requirements are specifically for workers that are trying to get out of being vaccinated. Kind of opposite goals there.
Also just fyi workplaces generally care that you're there for your scheduled shift. They don't care what your proximity is to the "client base" on your time off. It's not like a phlebotomist is going in for a COVID test and saying "well I'm so close by lemme draw a couple labs while I'm here." I think you can work on quality over quantity when formulating your posts. A kitchen sink of bad arguments is not as good as 1 decent argument.
Edit: also I know people that went the twice-weekly testing for declining the booster and it seemed like a pain in the dick.
|
On January 24 2023 19:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 18:56 Magic Powers wrote: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.)
I know plenty of people that used religions/medical exemptions to avoid the vaccine. I don't think they got much pushback. Seems pretty irrelevant to the discussion, though.
|
On January 24 2023 19:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 19:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2023 18:56 Magic Powers wrote: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.) I know plenty of people that used religions/medical exemptions to avoid the vaccine. I don't think they got much pushback. Seems pretty irrelevant to the discussion, though.
If essentially anyone who's anti-vaxx can use those exemptions as loopholes, then the vaccine mandate isn't really being enforced. Anti-vaxxers wouldn't need to worry about losing their jobs if it's an easy/common workaround without much pushback.
|
On January 24 2023 19:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 04:40 Simberto wrote: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. I doubt that is true. For exanple businesses often run flu shot clinics, because the clinics are cheaper than the missed days are, both the plan costs and the loss of productivity. Now if you have a very small number of people impacted then it might not make economic sense, but that would mean millions were not impacted. Are you saying there was no testing at places where tgis large group of healthcare workers required testing? I will look it up as it makes no sense logistically. Whoever is profiting would want them as close to their large client base as possible. But I want to confirm before the facts change. Edit: looks like less then before, but tons of testing options first place I looked. Tons are medical centers and doctors offices. Some bigger ones are closing due to lack of demand. https://sf.gov/drop-testing Yeah businesses run flu-shot clinics to get their employees vaccinated. These testing requirements are specifically for workers that are trying to get out of being vaccinated. Kind of opposite goals there. Also just fyi workplaces generally care that you're there for your scheduled shift. They don't care what your proximity is to the "client base" on your time off. It's not like a phlebotomist is going in for a COVID test and saying "well I'm so close by lemme draw a couple labs while I'm here." I think you can work on quality over quantity when formulating your posts. A kitchen sink of bad arguments is not as good as 1 decent argument.Edit: also I know people that went the twice-weekly testing for declining the booster and it seemed like a pain in the dick.
Ha.
Hahahaha.
I think you're the only person who doesn't realise the incredibly irony of that statement.
|
On January 24 2023 19:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 19:28 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 19:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2023 18:56 Magic Powers wrote: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.) I know plenty of people that used religions/medical exemptions to avoid the vaccine. I don't think they got much pushback. Seems pretty irrelevant to the discussion, though. If essentially anyone who's anti-vaxx can use those exemptions as loopholes, then the vaccine mandate isn't really being enforced. Anti-vaxxers wouldn't need to worry about losing their jobs if it's an easy/common workaround without much pushback.
Except we all know that these loopholes are bullshit so essentially your argument is "It's not a mandate if you can just lie your way out of having to do it." Maybe lying comes easier to some than others and not everyone wants to do that.
|
On January 24 2023 20:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 19:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2023 19:28 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 19:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2023 18:56 Magic Powers wrote: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.) I know plenty of people that used religions/medical exemptions to avoid the vaccine. I don't think they got much pushback. Seems pretty irrelevant to the discussion, though. If essentially anyone who's anti-vaxx can use those exemptions as loopholes, then the vaccine mandate isn't really being enforced. Anti-vaxxers wouldn't need to worry about losing their jobs if it's an easy/common workaround without much pushback. Except we all know that these loopholes are bullshit so essentially your argument is "It's not a mandate if you can just lie your way out of having to do it." Maybe lying comes easier to some than others and not everyone wants to do that.
I'm not super familiar with that, which is why I asked those questions to learn more, but assuming you're right, then NettleS's question about whether or not California counts as a second state with real, enforced booster mandates is clearly answered with "they're not actually providing a legitimate ultimatum, the same way New Mexico was". We were trying to find states that actually gave a true dichotomy of "get on board with getting the booster vaccine or you're fired", whereas the introduction of a third alternative - such as "actually, you can keep working here without having the booster shot if you're regularly tested and/or you can get out of the booster shot if you simply disagree with vaccines morally" - would nullify that state.
|
Not if you disagree with them morally. Specifically if there is a religious exemption. Also I should add that I don't know anyone that got a medical exemption and I know several people that claimed a medical exemption and were denied. So it is specifically religious exemption and I don't think there was much pushback. As an atheist, it doesn't really apply to me.
|
This article from 1993 seems eerily applicable to current situation:
https://fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/
"Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for the “nation’s health” and quite another to be responsible for an individual patient’s health. "
"Economic efficiency became the major concern, and health care became primarily a question of cost-benefit analysis. Under the socialist policies of the period, this analysis was necessarily applied to the selection of strong persons, deemed worthy of support, and the elimination of weak and “unproductive” people."
"We now know the end of this historical horror story of massive crimes against humanity and the leader of the thousand-year Reich burning in a bunker in Berlin. But it is not so easy to recognize the steps on the path down the slippery slope when we don’t yet know the end of the story—as today we do not know which social health reforms in combination with which new medical technologies have the potential to plunge modern society over a brink in which disaster might result. Is legalized abortion a new form of medicide? Is doctor-assisted suicide a step toward positive euthanasia? Is modern genetic testing and the Human Genome Project the first step to a new eugenics? Is health care rationing, which is always a result of government involvement in medical care, a step toward the new definition of”life unworthy of living” ? Is our present “quality of life index” a new way of saying it?"
|
On January 24 2023 22:01 Razyda wrote:This article from 1993 seems eerily applicable to current situation: https://fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/"Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for the “nation’s health” and quite another to be responsible for an individual patient’s health."
That is the necessary nature of a national - or international - pandemic; the medical community ends up carrying a much greater burden than normal, even as they're derided by anti-science/anti-medicine laypeople... and, apparently, people who think that healthcare workers are comparable to Nazis. Seriously, wtf.
|
|
|
On January 24 2023 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 22:01 Razyda wrote:This article from 1993 seems eerily applicable to current situation: https://fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/"Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for the “nation’s health” and quite another to be responsible for an individual patient’s health." That is the necessary nature of a national - or international - pandemic; the medical community ends up carrying a much greater burden than normal, even as they're derided by anti-science/anti-medicine laypeople.
I'd argue it's also the wrong way of framing it. Healthcare professionals were asking the government for more support, not the other way around. The healthcare-government relationship is stronger now, and increased funding has led to improved medical practices.
That is a process, it comes with new problems (mainly from financial interests) that need new solutions. And that shouldn't be surprising because nothing is perfect. It's the reason why Pfizer was required to work shoulder to shoulder with the CDC to guarantee that nothing goes under the radar. I have no idea how that can be considered a bad thing.
|
On January 25 2023 00:04 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2023 22:01 Razyda wrote:This article from 1993 seems eerily applicable to current situation: https://fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/"Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for the “nation’s health” and quite another to be responsible for an individual patient’s health." That is the necessary nature of a national - or international - pandemic; the medical community ends up carrying a much greater burden than normal, even as they're derided by anti-science/anti-medicine laypeople. I'd argue it's also the wrong way of framing it. Healthcare professionals were asking the government for more support, not the other way around. The healthcare-government relationship is stronger now, and increased funding has led to improved medical practices. That is a process, it comes with new problems (mainly from financial interests) that need new solutions. And that shouldn't be surprising because nothing is perfect. It's the reason why Pfizer was required to work shoulder to shoulder with the CDC to guarantee that nothing goes under the radar. I have no idea how that can be considered a bad thing.
And not just any old bad thing, but comparable to the Holocaust, according to Razyda. It's both absurd and extremely disrespectful. It's just another nonsensical "Dr. Fauci is as bad as Hitler" take.
Edit: Apparently, Razyda was banned in this thread just last month; I have a feeling this article isn't going to help restore Razyda's image.
|
On January 24 2023 23:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 19:25 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 04:40 Simberto wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I doubt that is true. For exanple businesses often run flu shot clinics, because the clinics are cheaper than the missed days are, both the plan costs and the loss of productivity. Now if you have a very small number of people impacted then it might not make economic sense, but that would mean millions were not impacted. Are you saying there was no testing at places where tgis large group of healthcare workers required testing? I will look it up as it makes no sense logistically. Whoever is profiting would want them as close to their large client base as possible. But I want to confirm before the facts change. Edit: looks like less then before, but tons of testing options first place I looked. Tons are medical centers and doctors offices. Some bigger ones are closing due to lack of demand. https://sf.gov/drop-testing Yeah businesses run flu-shot clinics to get their employees vaccinated. These testing requirements are specifically for workers that are trying to get out of being vaccinated. Kind of opposite goals there. Also just fyi workplaces generally care that you're there for your scheduled shift. They don't care what your proximity is to the "client base" on your time off. It's not like a phlebotomist is going in for a COVID test and saying "well I'm so close by lemme draw a couple labs while I'm here." I think you can work on quality over quantity when formulating your posts. A kitchen sink of bad arguments is not as good as 1 decent argument. Edit: also I know people that went the twice-weekly testing for declining the booster and it seemed like a pain in the dick. This is amazing!!!! Perfect! I have not been making arguements. Ive been pointing out that yours are not based on facts and asking for sources (the ones you supplied have not saod what you claimed they did) or clarifacation. You're basically insulting yourself, I cant respond in kind because my special considerations get me banned/warned for long stamding TL traditions, while yours allow you to make unsupported claim after claim, insult people, make up their arguements and so on. Lucky other people are digging so you can grasp onto what they find.
I actually don't have to answer questions such as...
How long before the booster vaccine deadline was it delayed or cancelled?
How hard/easy was it to get a religious or medical exemption for HCW required to get the booster?
How arduous was it to complete the required twice-weekly testing for HCW that wished to decline the booster?
...in order to prove my point that the booster was not just "loosely recommended" or that booster mandates weren't a thing. You should be able to see that simply asking those questions defeats your point without me even having to answer them. If the booster was only loosely recommended and booster mandates weren't a thing these questions wouldn't even exist.
|
|
|
On January 25 2023 10:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2023 09:50 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 19:25 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 04:40 Simberto wrote:On January 24 2023 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 24 2023 03:57 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 02:00 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
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. I doubt that is true. For exanple businesses often run flu shot clinics, because the clinics are cheaper than the missed days are, both the plan costs and the loss of productivity. Now if you have a very small number of people impacted then it might not make economic sense, but that would mean millions were not impacted. Are you saying there was no testing at places where tgis large group of healthcare workers required testing? I will look it up as it makes no sense logistically. Whoever is profiting would want them as close to their large client base as possible. But I want to confirm before the facts change. Edit: looks like less then before, but tons of testing options first place I looked. Tons are medical centers and doctors offices. Some bigger ones are closing due to lack of demand. https://sf.gov/drop-testing Yeah businesses run flu-shot clinics to get their employees vaccinated. These testing requirements are specifically for workers that are trying to get out of being vaccinated. Kind of opposite goals there. Also just fyi workplaces generally care that you're there for your scheduled shift. They don't care what your proximity is to the "client base" on your time off. It's not like a phlebotomist is going in for a COVID test and saying "well I'm so close by lemme draw a couple labs while I'm here." I think you can work on quality over quantity when formulating your posts. A kitchen sink of bad arguments is not as good as 1 decent argument. Edit: also I know people that went the twice-weekly testing for declining the booster and it seemed like a pain in the dick. This is amazing!!!! Perfect! I have not been making arguements. Ive been pointing out that yours are not based on facts and asking for sources (the ones you supplied have not saod what you claimed they did) or clarifacation. You're basically insulting yourself, I cant respond in kind because my special considerations get me banned/warned for long stamding TL traditions, while yours allow you to make unsupported claim after claim, insult people, make up their arguements and so on. Lucky other people are digging so you can grasp onto what they find. I actually don't have to answer questions such as... How long before the booster vaccine deadline was it delayed or cancelled? How hard/easy was it to get a religious or medical exemption for HCW required to get the booster? How arduous was it to complete the required twice-weekly testing for HCW that wished to decline the booster? ...in order to prove my point that the booster was not just "loosely recommended" or that booster mandates weren't a thing. You should be able to see that simply asking those questions defeats your point without me even having to answer them. If the booster was only loosely recommended and booster mandates weren't a thing these questions wouldn't even exist. That you could get testing instead, means it was not required. You making up that it was super inconvient and even your friends told you does not make it factual. There was no millions effected. Possibly 100s in New Mexico but Eris source did not say. The arguement is whether or not this is even bad.
Yes, it does mean it's required. "Get a Booster or else X" is a booster mandate. Whether X is "lose your job" or whether X is "get tested twice a week" is not the dividing line of whether or not something is a mandate. That's where you've personally decided the dividing line is so you can keep up the ridiculous charade that booster mandates didn't exist.
|
|
|
On January 25 2023 11:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On January 25 2023 10:46 JimmiC wrote:On January 25 2023 09:50 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 19:25 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 05:38 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 04:40 Simberto wrote:On January 24 2023 04:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] 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. I doubt that is true. For exanple businesses often run flu shot clinics, because the clinics are cheaper than the missed days are, both the plan costs and the loss of productivity. Now if you have a very small number of people impacted then it might not make economic sense, but that would mean millions were not impacted. Are you saying there was no testing at places where tgis large group of healthcare workers required testing? I will look it up as it makes no sense logistically. Whoever is profiting would want them as close to their large client base as possible. But I want to confirm before the facts change. Edit: looks like less then before, but tons of testing options first place I looked. Tons are medical centers and doctors offices. Some bigger ones are closing due to lack of demand. https://sf.gov/drop-testing Yeah businesses run flu-shot clinics to get their employees vaccinated. These testing requirements are specifically for workers that are trying to get out of being vaccinated. Kind of opposite goals there. Also just fyi workplaces generally care that you're there for your scheduled shift. They don't care what your proximity is to the "client base" on your time off. It's not like a phlebotomist is going in for a COVID test and saying "well I'm so close by lemme draw a couple labs while I'm here." I think you can work on quality over quantity when formulating your posts. A kitchen sink of bad arguments is not as good as 1 decent argument. Edit: also I know people that went the twice-weekly testing for declining the booster and it seemed like a pain in the dick. This is amazing!!!! Perfect! I have not been making arguements. Ive been pointing out that yours are not based on facts and asking for sources (the ones you supplied have not saod what you claimed they did) or clarifacation. You're basically insulting yourself, I cant respond in kind because my special considerations get me banned/warned for long stamding TL traditions, while yours allow you to make unsupported claim after claim, insult people, make up their arguements and so on. Lucky other people are digging so you can grasp onto what they find. I actually don't have to answer questions such as... How long before the booster vaccine deadline was it delayed or cancelled? How hard/easy was it to get a religious or medical exemption for HCW required to get the booster? How arduous was it to complete the required twice-weekly testing for HCW that wished to decline the booster? ...in order to prove my point that the booster was not just "loosely recommended" or that booster mandates weren't a thing. You should be able to see that simply asking those questions defeats your point without me even having to answer them. If the booster was only loosely recommended and booster mandates weren't a thing these questions wouldn't even exist. That you could get testing instead, means it was not required. You making up that it was super inconvient and even your friends told you does not make it factual. There was no millions effected. Possibly 100s in New Mexico but Eris source did not say. The arguement is whether or not this is even bad. Yes, it does mean it's required. "Get a Booster or else X" is a booster mandate. Whether X is "lose your job" or whether X is "get tested twice a week" is not the dividing line of whether or not something is a mandate. That's where you've personally decided the dividing line is so you can keep up the ridiculous charade that booster mandates didn't exist. Your words Show nested quote +"Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job." ". Millions falling under a “booster of terminate” mandate " I'm not sure how you now are dressing me down for thinking that you meant a mandate where people lost their jobs not one where they are minorly inconvenienced. Do you forget what you just typed, do you think we won't check? A little honesty would be appreciated.
Right, we've been over that. I already showed that several states mandated boosters or risking termination in the original link. The largest being New York which extended the deadline at least twice within 1-3 days of hitting it and then nixed it after that, presumedly after enough HCW were already scared straight into getting the booster that it no longer actually had to follow through with the threats. Or as DPB puts it, NY "didn't bother mandating boosters" lmao.
But even if we wanted to accept your argument that booster mandates aren't mandates until after the deadline lapses, we still have Eri's example of New Mexico
Or how about New Jersey
https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/04/nj-health-care-workers-employees-gov-murphy-covid19-booster-deadline-mandate-arrives/
Hundreds of thousands of health care workers in New Jersey’s hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities had until Monday to be vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19 or face disciplinary action, including the possibility of losing their job. And despite an initial uproar, it seems most health care workers have complied.
Gov. Phil Murphy doubled down on the state’s existing vaccination mandate — adding a booster requirement and eliminating a testing option — on Jan. 19, just over a week after he extended the state’s public health emergency
Or Connecticut
https://www.wtnh.com/news/health/coronavirus/lamont-to-update-covid-19-vaccine-requirement-for-long-term-care-and-state-hospital-employees/
The Democratic governor signed two executive orders Thursday evening requiring boosters for employees at long-term care facilities, including assisted living and residential care homes, as well as the 3,600 state employees at state-run chronic care hospitals, such as Connecticut Valley Hospital and Whiting Forensic Hospital.
Dr. Deirdre Gifford, a health adviser to Lamont and the Department of Social Services commissioner, said employees affected by the governor’s new executive order will not have the ability to take a test as an alternative.
Splice it a thousand different ways and desperately try to define terms as narrowly as possible to suit your argument and you're still wrong.
|
|
|
On January 25 2023 13:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2023 12:43 BlackJack wrote:On January 25 2023 11:39 JimmiC wrote:On January 25 2023 11:28 BlackJack wrote:On January 25 2023 10:46 JimmiC wrote:On January 25 2023 09:50 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 19:25 BlackJack wrote:On January 24 2023 07:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 24 2023 05:38 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
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.
I doubt that is true. For exanple businesses often run flu shot clinics, because the clinics are cheaper than the missed days are, both the plan costs and the loss of productivity. Now if you have a very small number of people impacted then it might not make economic sense, but that would mean millions were not impacted. Are you saying there was no testing at places where tgis large group of healthcare workers required testing? I will look it up as it makes no sense logistically. Whoever is profiting would want them as close to their large client base as possible. But I want to confirm before the facts change. Edit: looks like less then before, but tons of testing options first place I looked. Tons are medical centers and doctors offices. Some bigger ones are closing due to lack of demand. https://sf.gov/drop-testing Yeah businesses run flu-shot clinics to get their employees vaccinated. These testing requirements are specifically for workers that are trying to get out of being vaccinated. Kind of opposite goals there. Also just fyi workplaces generally care that you're there for your scheduled shift. They don't care what your proximity is to the "client base" on your time off. It's not like a phlebotomist is going in for a COVID test and saying "well I'm so close by lemme draw a couple labs while I'm here." I think you can work on quality over quantity when formulating your posts. A kitchen sink of bad arguments is not as good as 1 decent argument. Edit: also I know people that went the twice-weekly testing for declining the booster and it seemed like a pain in the dick. This is amazing!!!! Perfect! I have not been making arguements. Ive been pointing out that yours are not based on facts and asking for sources (the ones you supplied have not saod what you claimed they did) or clarifacation. You're basically insulting yourself, I cant respond in kind because my special considerations get me banned/warned for long stamding TL traditions, while yours allow you to make unsupported claim after claim, insult people, make up their arguements and so on. Lucky other people are digging so you can grasp onto what they find. I actually don't have to answer questions such as... How long before the booster vaccine deadline was it delayed or cancelled? How hard/easy was it to get a religious or medical exemption for HCW required to get the booster? How arduous was it to complete the required twice-weekly testing for HCW that wished to decline the booster? ...in order to prove my point that the booster was not just "loosely recommended" or that booster mandates weren't a thing. You should be able to see that simply asking those questions defeats your point without me even having to answer them. If the booster was only loosely recommended and booster mandates weren't a thing these questions wouldn't even exist. That you could get testing instead, means it was not required. You making up that it was super inconvient and even your friends told you does not make it factual. There was no millions effected. Possibly 100s in New Mexico but Eris source did not say. The arguement is whether or not this is even bad. Yes, it does mean it's required. "Get a Booster or else X" is a booster mandate. Whether X is "lose your job" or whether X is "get tested twice a week" is not the dividing line of whether or not something is a mandate. That's where you've personally decided the dividing line is so you can keep up the ridiculous charade that booster mandates didn't exist. Your words "Many people were required by law to get it or lose their job." ". Millions falling under a “booster of terminate” mandate " I'm not sure how you now are dressing me down for thinking that you meant a mandate where people lost their jobs not one where they are minorly inconvenienced. Do you forget what you just typed, do you think we won't check? A little honesty would be appreciated. Right, we've been over that. I already showed that several states mandated boosters or risking termination in the original link. The largest being New York which extended the deadline at least twice within 1-3 days of hitting it and then nixed it after that, presumedly after enough HCW were already scared straight into getting the booster that it no longer actually had to follow through with the threats. Or as DPB puts it, NY "didn't bother mandating boosters" lmao. But even if we wanted to accept your argument that booster mandates aren't mandates until after the deadline lapses, we still have Eri's example of New Mexico Or how about New Jersey https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/04/nj-health-care-workers-employees-gov-murphy-covid19-booster-deadline-mandate-arrives/Hundreds of thousands of health care workers in New Jersey’s hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities had until Monday to be vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19 or face disciplinary action, including the possibility of losing their job. And despite an initial uproar, it seems most health care workers have complied.
Gov. Phil Murphy doubled down on the state’s existing vaccination mandate — adding a booster requirement and eliminating a testing option — on Jan. 19, just over a week after he extended the state’s public health emergency Or Connecticut https://www.wtnh.com/news/health/coronavirus/lamont-to-update-covid-19-vaccine-requirement-for-long-term-care-and-state-hospital-employees/The Democratic governor signed two executive orders Thursday evening requiring boosters for employees at long-term care facilities, including assisted living and residential care homes, as well as the 3,600 state employees at state-run chronic care hospitals, such as Connecticut Valley Hospital and Whiting Forensic Hospital.
Dr. Deirdre Gifford, a health adviser to Lamont and the Department of Social Services commissioner, said employees affected by the governor’s new executive order will not have the ability to take a test as an alternative. Splice it a thousand different ways and desperately try to define terms as narrowly as possible to suit your argument and you're still wrong. Fact checking you is so tiring. Im only doing connecticut because the first post you made says it did not happen. Show nested quote +Similarly, California and Connecticut recently delayed their requirements that health care workers receive a booster dose to March 1 and March 7, respectively. Maybe they happened after that, I do not know. But I would guess if it did the press release would be easy to find and you would have posted that. Even these sources about it possibly happening stress how few it impacts yet your claims were in the millions. This large group of people just does not exist. Not to mention the whole safe and effective thing and these people working directly around the most vulnerable, which is why so few refused. Pretty sure their rights matter as well.
You want a press release where they announce they aren’t going to delay it again? huh? If they did delay it again that would be an easy to find press release yet you couldn’t come up with it. So what does that tell us?
And just to reiterate, New York announced they were delaying the deadline for their vaccinate or terminate mandate on a Friday afternoon when it was set to go into effect Monday. Spoiler alert, most people aren’t going to gamble with their career by trying to get a vaccine at the last minute during non-business hours just because there’s a small chance the mandate might get delayed at the last minute. If you think it’s inaccurate to say that those people were under a vaccinate or terminate mandate then you just have your own version of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
