Coronavirus Outbreak

[Josh]

https://apnews.com/article/business-hea ... e7e4bfbb92

I'm extremely skeptical this will remain just at nursing homes when the roll out happens. Anyone know of nursing homes not taking Medicaid or Medicare in the plain world? or have they all taken it?

All the mainstream Menno nursing homes I'm aware of probably have the huge majority of their patients on either Medicare or Medicaid.

NOTE: It is the patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid. That is who pays their bills. I would imagine most nursing homes would have to evict most of their patients and would quickly go bankrupt if they chose not to accept patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid.

And no. It won't just be nursing homes. It will be all health care jobs that come into contact with the public. That is already the requirement in some states like here in WA.

So, those with religious convictions won’t be able to work in health care jobs. Got it.

[nett]

The NYT is finally telling the truth. Support for boosters seems to be less ubiquitous than the initial vaccine push. So it'll be interesting to see what they push next My guess is more lockdowns, and masking. I think the way is already being paved for that with fraudulent articles already being published about how it's good for kids to wear masks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/worl ... ticleShare

[Ken]

https://apnews.com/article/business-hea ... e7e4bfbb92

I'm extremely skeptical this will remain just at nursing homes when the roll out happens. Anyone know of nursing homes not taking Medicaid or Medicare in the plain world? or have they all taken it?

All the mainstream Menno nursing homes I'm aware of probably have the huge majority of their patients on either Medicare or Medicaid.

NOTE: It is the patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid. That is who pays their bills. I would imagine most nursing homes would have to evict most of their patients and would quickly go bankrupt if they chose not to accept patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid.

And no. It won't just be nursing homes. It will be all health care jobs that come into contact with the public. That is already the requirement in some states like here in WA.

So, those with religious convictions won’t be able to work in health care jobs. Got it.

No. Vast numbers of people who work in heath care and have strong religious convictions have been vaccinated and believe it is their moral and ethical duty to do so if they are caring for vulnerable people.

There may be a few who believe that their anti-vax stance is of higher importance than the health of the people under their care. That is a decision they will have to make for themselves. Honestly, only about 2% of the anti-vax sentiment I hear both here and in the general public is religious-based anyway.

[Josh]

All the mainstream Menno nursing homes I'm aware of probably have the huge majority of their patients on either Medicare or Medicaid.

NOTE: It is the patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid. That is who pays their bills. I would imagine most nursing homes would have to evict most of their patients and would quickly go bankrupt if they chose not to accept patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid.

And no. It won't just be nursing homes. It will be all health care jobs that come into contact with the public. That is already the requirement in some states like here in WA.

So, those with religious convictions won’t be able to work in health care jobs. Got it.

No. Vast numbers of people who work in heath care and have strong religious convictions have been vaccinated and believe it is their moral and ethical duty to do so if they are caring for vulnerable people.

There may be a few who believe that their anti-vax stance is of higher importance than the health of the people under their care. That is a decision they will have to make for themselves. Honestly, only about 2% of the anti-vax sentiment I hear both here and in the general public is religious-based anyway.

Ken, do you think abortion is wrong?

Do you respect that some of us have religious convictions against abortion? Should we be allowed to work in healthcare or not?

[nett]

All the mainstream Menno nursing homes I'm aware of probably have the huge majority of their patients on either Medicare or Medicaid.

NOTE: It is the patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid. That is who pays their bills. I would imagine most nursing homes would have to evict most of their patients and would quickly go bankrupt if they chose not to accept patients who are on Medicare/Medicaid.

And no. It won't just be nursing homes. It will be all health care jobs that come into contact with the public. That is already the requirement in some states like here in WA.

So, those with religious convictions won’t be able to work in health care jobs. Got it.

No. Vast numbers of people who work in heath care and have strong religious convictions have been vaccinated and believe it is their moral and ethical duty to do so if they are caring for vulnerable people.

There may be a few who believe that their anti-vax stance is of higher importance than the health of the people under their care. That is a decision they will have to make for themselves. Honestly, only about 2% of the anti-vax sentiment I hear both here and in the general public is religious-based anyway.

You continue to refuse to accept reality. The vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, and in the case of the delta variant can actually increase communicability. So how is a healthcare workers getting the vaccine prioritizing "the health of the people under their care".

[nett]

Ken, you appear to be much more passionate about forcing healthcare to violate their conscience and take a vaccine that doesn't work, than to engage in my posts about the NYT admitting the vaccine doesn't work.

Much like mRNA vaccines, doublethink may have long term negatives effects on your health....

[Ken]

So, those with religious convictions won’t be able to work in health care jobs. Got it.

No. Vast numbers of people who work in heath care and have strong religious convictions have been vaccinated and believe it is their moral and ethical duty to do so if they are caring for vulnerable people.

There may be a few who believe that their anti-vax stance is of higher importance than the health of the people under their care. That is a decision they will have to make for themselves. Honestly, only about 2% of the anti-vax sentiment I hear both here and in the general public is religious-based anyway.

You continue to refuse to accept reality. The vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, and in the case of the delta variant can actually increase communicability. So how is a healthcare workers getting the vaccine prioritizing "the health of the people under their care".

I'm the one who refuses to accept reality? OK then....

Fact: Vaccines reduce symptomatic infections. Hundreds of studies have demonstrated this. Hospital wards right now are mainly full of the unvaccinated. Here in my metro area about 95% of current Covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated despite the fact that we are at 71% vaccinated for 18 and up and 59% of the total population vaccinated. If the vaccine prevents you from getting infected then you can't pass it on. At my wife's clinic the vast majority of Covid positive tests they are currently seeing are unvaccinated. Something like 90-95%. They know this because it is an HMO and they have access to all patient vaccine records as well as test results.

Fact: Vaccines reduce asymptomatic infections. Many studies have demonstrated this. If you are vaccinated you are much less likely to be an asymptomatic carrier and pass the disease on to others. Or, conversely. If you are unvaccinated then you are at higher risk of being an asymptomatic carrier and unknowingly pass the disease on to others.

Fact: When vaccinated people do catch breakthrough infections, which sometimes happens because the vaccines are not 100% effective, they do tend to catch milder versions of the disease and have lower viral loads than unvaccinated. Many studies have also demonstrated this. If your body is producing and shedding less of the virus then you are by definition less communicable. You might still transmit the disease, if you are sick then you are contagious. But the risk is indeed lower if your viral loads are lower. The relationship between viral loads and communicability is exactly why delta is more communicable. It produces something like 1000x higher viral loads.

Fact: Public health and combatting pandemics requires a public effort and it is perfectly reasonable and responsible to expect public health workers to model this effort for the rest of the community. That is part of the job description. My wife's clinic just fired a nurse who was doing the opposite and spreading anti-vax misinformation to patients. We do the same in every walk of life. Stock brokers who like to clients about investments and investment risks are often fired. Real estate agents who lie to people about properties are fired. Teachers who lie to students or parents are fired. It is no different in heath care.

Fact: This pandemic will not be over until we reach a high enough level of herd immunity within the population. It is perfectly reasonable to expect public health workers to participate in that effort rather than undermine it.

[nett]

No. Vast numbers of people who work in heath care and have strong religious convictions have been vaccinated and believe it is their moral and ethical duty to do so if they are caring for vulnerable people.

There may be a few who believe that their anti-vax stance is of higher importance than the health of the people under their care. That is a decision they will have to make for themselves. Honestly, only about 2% of the anti-vax sentiment I hear both here and in the general public is religious-based anyway.

You continue to refuse to accept reality. The vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, and in the case of the delta variant can actually increase communicability. So how is a healthcare workers getting the vaccine prioritizing "the health of the people under their care".

I'm the one who refuses to accept reality? OK then....

Fact: Vaccines reduce symptomatic infections. Hundreds of studies have demonstrated this. Hospital wards right now are mainly full of the unvaccinated. Here in my metro area about 95% of current Covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated despite the fact that we are at 71% vaccinated for 18 and up and 59% of the total population vaccinated. If the vaccine prevents you from getting infected then you can't pass it on. At my wife's clinic the vast majority of Covid positive tests they are currently seeing are unvaccinated. Something like 90-95%. They know this because it is an HMO and they have access to all patient vaccine records as well as test results.

Your continual use of outdated efficacy numbers is bordering on lying. Israel is now down in below 40% efficacy in preventing infections.

Fact: Vaccines reduce asymptomatic infections. Many studies have demonstrated this. If you are vaccinated you are much less likely to be an asymptomatic carrier and pass the disease on to others. Or, conversely. If you are unvaccinated then you are at higher risk of being an asymptomatic carrier and unknowingly pass the disease on to others.

I dispute this claim entirely. Although an association between vaccination and a reduction in symptomatic disease has been well described, an association with asymptomatic infection remains unclear.

Fact: When vaccinated people do catch breakthrough infections, which sometimes happens because the vaccines are not 100% effective, they do tend to catch milder versions of the disease and have lower viral loads than unvaccinated. Many studies have also demonstrated this. If your body is producing and shedding less of the virus then you are by definition less communicable. You might still transmit the disease, if you are sick then you are contagious. But the risk is indeed lower if your viral loads are lower. The relationship between viral loads and communicability is exactly why delta is more communicable. It produces something like 1000x higher viral loads.

Fact: Public health and combatting pandemics requires a public effort and it is perfectly reasonable and responsible to expect public health workers to model this effort for the rest of the community. That is part of the job description. My wife's clinic just fired a nurse who was doing the opposite and spreading anti-vax misinformation to patients. We do the same in every walk of life. Stock brokers who like to clients about investments and investment risks are often fired. Real estate agents who lie to people about properties are fired. Teachers who lie to students or parents are fired. It is no different in heath care.

Fact: This pandemic will not be over until we reach a high enough level of herd immunity within the population. It is perfectly reasonable to expect public health workers to participate in that effort rather than undermine it.

yeah, except....Israel. Where all of your facts no longer hold. Let me again introduce you to some reality from the NYT, which ai ssume is a trusted blue check news source for you“The vaccinations were supposed to solve everything,” he said. “We now understand that the vaccines are not enough.”

If anything you should at least concede that healthcare workers who have been infected and recovered, should not be forced to get the vaccine. You conceded this with me personally, but you never caveat it when you make outrageous claims about how everyone should get the vaccines.

[Ken]

Nett: If you had actually read the study you cited regarding vaccinations and asymptomatic spread of Covid you would have reached the discussion section of the paper where the authors write:

This study found an association between vaccination with BNT162b2 in hospital employees and a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2. Limitations include the observational design; short follow-up time; small cohort size, which led to an inability to match the 2 groups and unequal follow-up; differential temporal risk during the surveillance; and that the group choosing not to be vaccinated may have been more prone to higher-risk behavior. The unequal follow-up time and the latter 2 limitations may have biased the results in favor of vaccination. Further research is needed to determine whether a reduction in risk of asymptomatic infection leads to reduced transmission

Delta is actually too new to have many long-term peer-reviewed studies about vaccines and transmissibility. But there is plenty of research to show that vaccines do reduce the transmissibility of Covid in general. Here is a discussion of the topic from Nature that was published recently: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z

COVID vaccines slash viral spread – but Delta is an unknown

Studies show that vaccines reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by more than 80%, but the Delta variant is creating fresh uncertainty.

Many vaccines have been shown to provide strong protection against COVID-19. Now, growing evidence finds that they also substantially reduce the risk of passing on the virus SARS-CoV-2 — crucial information for governments making decisions about how best to control the pandemic.

However, the studies were done before the highly transmissible Delta variant became prevalent — and scientists say it might be more easily spread by vaccinated people than are earlier variants.

Two studies1,2 from Israel, posted as preprints on 16 July, find that two doses of the vaccine made by pharmaceutical company Pfizer, based in New York City, and biotechnology company BioNTech, based in Mainz, Germany, are 81% effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections. And vaccinated people who do get infected are up to 78% less likely to spread the virus to household members than are unvaccinated people. Overall, this adds up to very high protection against transmission, say researchers.

The studies reflect population-level trends, say researchers. “It’s good news,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. “But it’s not quite good enough,” she notes, because it means that vaccinated people can still occasionally spread the infection.

And the highly transmissible Delta variant is a major source of uncertainty. The Israeli studies and others are based on the circulation of earlier variants, in particular Alpha, but research suggests that vaccines offer slightly reduced protection against Delta.

As for Israel. Scientists and data analysists are now considering that what is happening with Israeli data may be an example of something called "Simpsons Paradox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox which happens when data in separate groups shows one strong tendency but disappears or reverses when the groups are combined. In this case in Israel, the unvaccinated population tilts strongly young and healthy while the older population is both more vaccinated and accounts for the bulk of severe covid cases. When data are not segregated by age you can get contradictory results from what age-segregated data show.

Here is a recent discussion by a Biostatistician and biomedical researcher on Simpson's paradox and how it may be confounding analysis of Israeli Covid data: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/ ... vaccinated

In any event. You do whatever you want. We are obviously never going to agree. I'll leave others to decide whether being vaccinated or unvaccinated better reduces your risk of contracting Covid and spreading it on to others.

[Josh]

In any event. You do whatever you want.

You sure about that?

You seem to want people like Soloist to get kicked out of their jobs.