# Hospital suspends over 100 employees for not getting COVID vaccine



## ffemt8978 (Jun 9, 2021)

Hospital suspends 178 health care workers for failing to get COVID vaccine
					

They have two weeks to become fully vaccinated or they face termination.




					arstechnica.com


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jun 9, 2021)

We all knew this was coming, but I really didn't think it would happen until the vaccines had received full FDA approval. 

As someone who is not the least bit anti-vax (I was one of the first in line to get the COVID vaccine when it came available to me) but believes strongly in the principles of autonomy and self-determination, I really hope the lawsuit is successful. 

The population which is susceptible to severe COVID is discrete and the focus should be on vaccinating them, not on forcing young healthy people to be vaccinated against their wishes.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 9, 2021)

Carlos Danger said:


> We all knew this was coming, but honestly I didn't think it would happen until the vaccines had received full FDA approval. I hope the lawsuit is successful.


Kind of what I was thinking. Mandating an experimental and emergency use vaccine as a condition of employment seems to be pushing it.


----------



## GMCmedic (Jun 9, 2021)

I was just coming to post this. IU health requiring vaccines by September 1st.



			https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/indiana/articles/2021-06-02/iu-health-requiring-covid-19-vaccinations-for-all-employees


----------



## EpiEMS (Jun 9, 2021)

Carlos Danger said:


> but believes strongly in the principles of autonomy and self-determination, I really hope the lawsuit is successful.


What about the employer's rights? How's this different from mandating flu vaccines?


ffemt8978 said:


> Mandating an experimental and emergency use vaccine


The connotations of emergency use and experimental are really not so close to what is going on here - it's not like the vaccines aren't tested or aren't subject to rigorous study, they are just tested and produced in parallel & the study periods are a bit shorter (but at this point, they've been out for so long that the difference is meaningless)...


----------



## Akulahawk (Jun 10, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> What about the employer's rights? How's this different from mandating flu vaccines?


My employer (and most that I've had) have a policy where you either wear a mask while at work during flu season OR you get that year's flu vaccine. IOW: Opt in and you don't have wear a mask, opt out (for any reason, they don't care) and you must wear a mask. What's different is in this particular case there is no "opt out" provision. Basically opting out = you're fired.


----------



## EpiEMS (Jun 10, 2021)

Akulahawk said:


> My employer (and most that I've had) have a policy where you either wear a mask while at work during flu season OR you get that year's flu vaccine. IOW: Opt in and you don't have wear a mask, opt out (for any reason, they don't care) and you must wear a mask. What's different is in this particular case there is no "opt out" provision. Basically opting out = you're fired.



Seems like a reasonable policy. I must say, though, given the risks of COVID to the unvaccinated - particularly health care workers regularly at risk of exposure - to be vaccinated. In this case, and indeed, much like the flu, there is a litany of compelling rationale for an employer to try to protect the employee: ensuring available staffing, protecting the employer from liability, protecting patients, etc.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 10, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> What about the employer's rights? How's this different from mandating flu vaccines?
> 
> The connotations of emergency use and experimental are really not so close to what is going on here - it's not like the vaccines aren't tested or aren't subject to rigorous study, they are just tested and produced in parallel & the study periods are a bit shorter (but at this point, they've been out for so long that the difference is meaningless)...


The connotations of experimental and emergency use are absolutely a factor here.  These vaccines have not completed a full FDA approval process, nor do we know if there will be any long term or late acting side effects.  

Are you willing to let your employer mandate that you participate in an experimental or emergency use procedure in the name of the employer's rights?  Think carefully before answering that, because you may find yourself being shoved down the proverbial slippery slope.

This would be no different than requiring the flu vaccine except that the COVID vaccines have not received final FDA approval yet.  Then again, I've never ran across an employer who requires a flu vaccination as a condition of employment.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 10, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> Seems like a reasonable policy. I must say, though, given the risks of COVID to the unvaccinated - particularly health care workers regularly at risk of exposure - to be vaccinated. In this case, and indeed, much like the flu, there is a litany of compelling rationale for an employer to try to protect the employee: ensuring available staffing, protecting the employer from liability, protecting patients, etc.


"Litany of compelling rationale for an employer to try and protect the employee"

And the road to Hell is paved in good intentions.

Where do you draw the line?  May an employer require you be a non-smoking, non-drinking, 4 day a week exercising, body fat percentage of less than 2%, genetically screened for minimal risks to cancer?  All of these things carry risks to employer staffing availability, and all have been viewed as "the greatest threat" to a person's health at one time or another.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jun 10, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> What about the employer's rights? How's this different from mandating flu vaccines?


Well, I never agreed with mandating flu vaccines, either. And what rights of the employer are we even talking about? The right to to attempt to avoid the staffing challenges that could potentially arise as a result of some employees potentially becoming ill? If we are being honest, from the perspective of the employer, that is mainly all that this comes down to. The idea that that outweighs the autonomy and self determination of every one of their employees is pretty remarkable, IMO, and we should really consider the logical extensions of that.



EpiEMS said:


> The connotations of emergency use and experimental are really not so close to what is going on here - it's not like the vaccines aren't tested or aren't subject to rigorous study, they are just tested and produced in parallel & the study periods are a bit shorter (but at this point, they've been out for so long that the difference is meaningless)...


The vaccines have not completed the FDA approval process - full stop. Emergency use authorization is not the same thing. And if completing the full FDA approval process isn't really that important, then why do we require it at all for any drug that shows the promise of safety and efficacy in early trials? Why not allow individuals (or employers, in the case of your position) to assess the safety of drugs on their own using data from independent, third party testing agencies? I know that is a significant digression from the topic at hand, but I think it's a fair question. Is full FDA approval important, or not? 

Getting this vaccine out into the communities quickly and encouraging VOLUNTARY USE after all preliminary investigations indicated that it was effective and safe made perfect sense when thousands of people were dying per day with no end in sight. But the COVID emergency is over in the US. New cases have been falling steadily for many weeks now, as have severe cases and fatality rates. About half of the overall population is vaccinated and another unquantified but probably quite significant percentage has developed at least some level of natural immunity. A large majority (>70%) of the elderly has been vaccinated and that number continues to rise. Putting individualism aside for a moment, I fail to see any compelling reason at this point to attempt to coerce anyone to be vaccinated against their will.



EpiEMS said:


> Seems like a reasonable policy. I must say, though, given the risks of COVID to the unvaccinated - particularly health care workers regularly at risk of exposure - to be vaccinated. In this case, and indeed, much like the flu, there is a litany of compelling rationale for an employer to try to protect the employee: ensuring available staffing, protecting the employer from liability, protecting patients, etc.


Again, the population most likely to be seriously affected by COVID is discrete and well defined (the elderly and those with pre-existing cardiorespiratory conditions) and a large majority of that population has already been vaccinated and is, essentially, no longer at high risk. If members of that or any other population choose to accept the risks of not being vaccinated, why is that not an OK choice?

Have we really completely discarded all respect for the ideas of individual responsibility and self ownership?

Are we really arguing that it is just to force one group (healthcare workers who would prefer not to be vaccinated) to give up their autonomy in order to try to insulate others (members of the public who would prefer not to be vaccinated) from the potential consequences of their decisions as they exercise _their own_ autonomy?

How is an employer liable for the personal decisions of one of their employees? If a long-time employee develops complications from smoking, would anyone consider it acceptable for them to hold their employer liable for failing to have a no smoking policy? If not, why would we hold an employer liable in the case that an employee gets COVID after choosing not to be vaccinated?

Would it really not be better to just let everyone make their own decisions on this? I think it would. I think it would not only be more just, but also simpler and easier to allow everyone to make their own decisions about their own healthcare, just like we've always been taught we should.

Education is important, obviously. Encouraging and incentivizing is fine. Mandating? No. Not at all - for several important reasons.


----------



## Fezman92 (Jun 10, 2021)

Even if it’s ruled that they can’t be fired for not getting the shot, they can still “just happen” to be fired because of at will employment laws.


----------



## Summit (Jun 10, 2021)

I think waiting until full FDA approval is the best move for any employer looking to make this conditional of employment.

I lean libertarian except for public health because herd immunity doesn't work based on pure personal liberty, nor does a concept of civilly enforced personal/fiscal responsibility work well after you've been a super spreader. If you want to be a purist libertarian about public health, well go start you own hospital where vaccinations are not required if you don't want to grant free enterprise their right to determine safety and continuity of operation interventions expected of staff who voluntarily choose to work for them.

Don't think an employer can mandate flu or COVID vaccine? What about your Measles and Mumps shots? These aren't primarily about employee protection so please stop with the silly "OMG stop forcing low risk people to protect themselves." It is about protecting patients and the public. Employees protection and staffing continuity are secondary benefits. This is very different from an employer firing your for being a tobacco user.

Further, the idea of masking mandates for those who cannot vaccinate requires employers to show who is vaccinated to other employees (that little sticker on your badge). This is only feasible for a mandated vaccine. It has been acceptable for flu because flu vaccine is yearly and variable unlike longer lasting and far more reliable protection via via vaccines like MMR and we think COVID-19 which are far more preventative against spread of disease than wearing a mask door-to-door.

Carlos while you bang your "just focus on vaccinating the vulnerable" drum, you know well that some of those most likely to have more severe courses who get vaccinated may not seroconvert and these folks are our patients. This includes patients who cannot be vaccinated. Further, those without primary risk factors for a more severe course does not exclude severe course, it just drives risk. Those people are also our patients.

FFemt he whole "long term worries" is a load of crap. Vaccines don't stay in trials for decades delaying approval until we know with extra super duper mega certainty they don't cause your big toe to fall off in 20 years. There has never been a vaccine that had unexpected severe long term adverse  effects without an obvious safety signal in the short term. This is naturally expected because vaccines are meant to elicit a short term reaction and any long term effects stem directly from short term effects. We do have the better part of a century of info here. Continuing to trot out the "OMG LONG TERM EFFECTS MAYBE??????" is beneath the well educated medical professional.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jun 10, 2021)

Summit said:


> If you want to be a purist libertarian about public health, well go start you own hospital where vaccinations are not required if you don't want to grant free enterprise their right to determine safety and continuity of operation interventions expected of staff who voluntarily choose to work for them.


Great idea! However, the reality is that almost all the problems that we have with access to care and skyrocketing healthcare costs are either directly or at least partially a result of the type of top-down mandates that you seem to endorse which makes this type of innovation and choice impossible. One of the best memes ever is that of the government making it impossible to fix things and then people thinking the fact that things never get fixed is somehow evidence that more government intervention is necessary.


Summit said:


> ICarlos while you bang your "just focus on vaccinating the vulnerable" drum, you know well that some of those most likely to have more severe courses who get vaccinated may not seroconvert and these folks are our patients. This includes patients who cannot be vaccinated. Further, those without primary risk factors for a more severe course does not exclude severe course, it just drives risk. Those people are also our patients.


No. Only half the population so far is vaccinated yet somehow new cases AND case severity AND fatality rates all continue to fall steadily. The risk of contracting COVID gets lower every day, even for those who aren't vaccinated. There are very few people who can't be vaccinated or in whom the vaccine is unlikely to be effective due to reduced immune response and we already handle those folks with special protections against respiratory disease transmission.


----------



## DrParasite (Jun 10, 2021)

I suggest everyone read up on this topic, from semi reputable sources, on the legality of mandating vaccinations:








						U.S. agency says employers can mandate COVID-19 vaccination
					

U.S. companies can mandate that employees in a workplace must be vaccinated against COVID-19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said on Friday.




					www.reuters.com
				











						Employers Can (Mostly) Require Vaccines For Workers Returning To The Office
					

Guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says employers can legally require workers to get a COVID-19 vaccine before returning to the office. But workers can claim exceptions.




					www.npr.org
				











						Can Employers Mandate a Vaccine Authorized for Emergency Use?
					

Recent developments may alleviate some concerns that employers have as they considered whether to encourage or require workers to get vaccinated against the coronavirus.




					www.shrm.org
				











						Can Your Employer Force You to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine?
					

An employer can make a COVID-19 vaccination a requirement if you want to continue working there, but there are significant exceptions.




					www.aarp.org
				




The conservative inside me says an employer can mandate whatever they want.  the liberal inside me says my body my choice.

The quasi-educated quasi-healthcare worker inside me asks is this really different than mandating vaccines for MMR, flu shots, smallpox, and requiring children to have vaccines to attend school?


----------



## GMCmedic (Jun 10, 2021)

I'm going to keep my thoughts on this short. 

The vaccines are safe and effective. Employers requiring EUA vaccinations is a can of worms and absolutely should be challenged all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.


----------



## Summit (Jun 10, 2021)

Carlos Danger said:


> Great idea! However, the reality is that


... market realities are painful to some, particularly in distorted markets? Sure. But there are tons of employers that these very few individuals can go work for if they don't like a new work requirement that 24,769 out of the 24,947 staff have found a way to be in compliance with... a policy the employer has legally asked of their employees, even if you and I disagree with it (though for different reasons). Free choice goes both ways!



Carlos Danger said:


> No. Only half the population so far is vaccinated yet somehow new cases AND case severity AND fatality rates all continue to fall steadily. The risk of contracting COVID gets lower every day, even for those who aren't vaccinated. There are very few people who can't be vaccinated or in whom the vaccine is unlikely to be effective due to reduced immune response and we already handle those folks with special protections against respiratory disease transmission.


The people who cannot get vaccinated and or who won't seroconvert, as well as those who are higher risk, are more likely to be our patients. We don't know who these 5+% non-seroconverters for mRNA vaccines are (12% against Delta variant) and higher rates for JJ.  So if an employer decides it to be an ethical imperative to have fully vaccinated staff to protect these vulnerable individuals, I think that's both ethical and legal. 

What is the risk of Measles and Mumps? Prevalence of COVID-19 is higher than Measles while MMRx2 is more effective than COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccination rates are higher in the population for MMR/MR than COVID-19. I fully support requiring MMR and flu vaccines for healthcare staff. For COVID vaccines, I still think they should wait until full FDA approval.


----------



## EpiEMS (Jun 10, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> The connotations of experimental and emergency use are absolutely a factor here.  These vaccines have not completed a full FDA approval process, nor do we know if there will be any long term or late acting side effects.
> 
> Are you willing to let your employer mandate that you participate in an experimental or emergency use procedure in the name of the employer's rights?  Think carefully before answering that, because you may find yourself being shoved down the proverbial slippery slope.
> 
> This would be no different than requiring the flu vaccine except that the COVID vaccines have not received final FDA approval yet.  Then again, I've never ran across an employer who requires a flu vaccination as a condition of employment.


The vaccines have gone through Phase 3 trials & have been used in hundreds of millions of people for months now without adverse consequences - how much more do you want? The data - at this point - is months and months and months, effectively enough for a full approval.

The employer & the employee both have rights - the vast majority of employees are at will & the job market has never been more employee friendly. 



ffemt8978 said:


> "Litany of compelling rationale for an employer to try and protect the employee"
> 
> And the road to Hell is paved in good intentions.
> 
> Where do you draw the line?  May an employer require you be a non-smoking, non-drinking, 4 day a week exercising, body fat percentage of less than 2%, genetically screened for minimal risks to cancer?  All of these things carry risks to employer staffing availability, and all have been viewed as "the greatest threat" to a person's health at one time or another.



Genetic screening is not permitted by law to be used against you in employment. You can absolutely make non-smoking a hiring requirement according to federal law (though not all state laws). Not sure about alcohol or exercising, but exercise/fitness can be a bona fide occupational qualification, and employers are totally allowed to have higher health insurance premiums for smokers. Employers can also require that you not smoke or drink on the job (or be intoxicated at work). Where do I draw the line? Since there are labor market frictions & inequities, I would say that anything out of your control, like genetics, should probably be protected, but other than that, it is more difficult to make a good case.



Carlos Danger said:


> Would it really not be better to just let everyone make their own decisions on this? I think it would. I think it would not only be more just, but also simpler and easier to allow everyone to make their own decisions about their own healthcare, just like we've always been taught we should.


In theory, sure. There are lots of negative externalities, however, and in the absence of willingness to use the carrot (which would be better, but still coercive in a way), a vaccine mandate is not so crazy, particulalry for an employer when an employee has the ability to quit. It's not as if there is a disparate impact on a class, a preponderance of evidence that there is risk from vaccination*.

*We can talk precautionary principle elsewhere - I can understand that line of reasoning, but if we follow it to the letter, then we don't have any innovation.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 10, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> The vaccines have gone through Phase 3 trials & have been used in hundreds of millions of people for months now without adverse consequences - how much more do you want? The data - at this point - is months and months and months, effectively enough for a full approval.
> 
> The employer & the employee both have rights - the vast majority of employees are at will & the job market has never been more employee friendly.
> 
> ...


Oh, there absolutely have been adverse consequences from the Covid vaccine.  There's a reason the CDC maintains this webpage: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Just because you choose to ignore those adverse consequences to bolster your argument does not mean other people have to ignore them...unless you feel your employer has the right to determine what risks you should take with your own body.

If the vaccine has gone thru everything required to give it its certification, then why hasn't the FDA approved it yet?  This would be a slightly different argument if it was a fully approved vaccine, but its not yet.  Some people have an issue with being forced to participate in an experimental vaccine roll out.

As far as your responses to my examples of things that are a risk to employer staffing levels, they were just examples and not an all inclusive list.  The point was that where do you draw the line at an employer making decisions about an employee's lifestyle?


----------



## Summit (Jun 10, 2021)

@ffemt8978 Pfizer thinks they have everything required for FDA approval over a month ago. They have already applied for full FDA approval which requires submitting all of that data. Just waiting on the FDA to review. Same for Moderna... of course FDA could come back and say no, but there is no data out there suggesting a rationale for FDA not to approve that I am aware of, including the CDC page you linked to which demonstrates that these vaccines are very safe and very effective. It sucks to be an outlier. It also sucks to be a bad case of COVID/complications and to be a disease spreader. I expect full FDA approvals for Moderna and Pfizer in a few months.


----------



## EpiEMS (Jun 10, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> Oh, there absolutely have been adverse consequences from the Covid vaccine.  There's a reason the CDC maintains this webpage: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
> 
> Just because you choose to ignore those adverse consequences to bolster your argument does not mean other people have to ignore them...unless you feel your employer has the right to determine what risks you should take with your own body.
> 
> ...


Not of any significance to the broad rollout. Firstly, VAERS accepts anybody's submission - I can put one in right now and make any claim I like. Second, of the adverse events that have happened, these are almost all speculation at this point or of minimal risk on a population level.

The FDA approval is administrative at this point - the delays are bureaucratic, not scientific. All of the information has been submitted.

In a strong labor market like this one...there are plenty of employers out there. Nobody is forcing you to work at a particular place. Furthermore, the employer has every right to protect customers & other employees.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 10, 2021)

You were the one who claimed there were no adverse effects of the vaccine, I just provided the link to prove that statement was incorrect.

Minimal risk or not, I am questioning whether or not the employer has the right to make that decision for its employees, and if so where do we draw the line?  It's too easy to claim that Covid is such a bad disease and these actions are justified, but what happens when the next disease comes down the pipe?  Once the groundwork has been laid, it is easier for others to travel down the same path pointing back to Covid as the basis and justification for their actions.

Employee or employer favored market makes no difference at this time, because it bounces back and forth so often.  If your best argument is that you can find work elsewhere, you're not trying hard enough to support your position. 

As I've said repeatedly, this issue is too important not to respond with factual, logical and reason based arguments.  Using emotion, hype, and hyperbole does no good for anyone.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 10, 2021)

Summit said:


> @ffemt8978 Pfizer thinks they have everything required for FDA approval over a month ago. They have already applied for full FDA approval which requires submitting all of that data. Just waiting on the FDA to review. Same for Moderna... of course FDA could come back and say no, but there is no data out there suggesting a rationale for FDA not to approve that I am aware of, including the CDC page you linked to which demonstrates that these vaccines are very safe and very effective. It sucks to be an outlier. It also sucks to be a bad case of COVID/complications and to be a disease spreader. I expect full FDA approvals for Moderna and Pfizer in a few months.


I am aware of that, and agree with your expectations.  I am questioning why this employer decided to take these actions before the vaccine was approved.

As far as being the outlier, is the employer willing to accept the costs of treatment (short term and long term) if one of their employees becomes an outlier?


----------



## EpiEMS (Jun 10, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> You were the one who claimed there were no adverse effects of the vaccine, I just provided the link to prove that statement was incorrect.


Perhaps an overstatement on my part to say "no" events, but the events you reference have been of such small size as to be meaningless from a policy or public health perspective. There's risks from every vaccine - the seasonal flu shots have adverse events, too, for example - but this is about risk vs. reward, and the reward of vaccination invariably exceeds cost. In this case, with COVID, it very clearly does.



ffemt8978 said:


> Minimal risk or not, I am questioning whether or not the employer has the right to make that decision for its employees, and if so where do we draw the line? It's too easy to claim that Covid is such a bad disease and these actions are justified, but what happens when the next disease comes down the pipe? Once the groundwork has been laid, it is easier for others to travel down the same path pointing back to Covid as the basis and justification for their actions.
> 
> Employee or employer favored market makes no difference at this time, because it bounces back and forth so often. If your best argument is that you can find work elsewhere, you're not trying hard enough to support your position.


Precedent may have been established, but costs and benefits change. Employers can make their judgement of risk/benefit & so can employees. Clearly this choice has been made in this case.

Personally, I am happy to get a vaccine that has made it through Phase 3 trials & has strong validated results. I don't need FDA approval to make that call. FDA approval is a bureaucratic step - the evidence was clear that the vaccines are safe & effective before the EUA was even granted.

Where do you draw the line? The approved vs. EUA?


----------



## Summit (Jun 10, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> I am aware of that, and agree with your expectations.  I am questioning why this employer decided to take these actions before the vaccine was approved.
> 
> As far as being the outlier, is the employer willing to accept the costs of treatment (short term and long term) if one of their employees becomes an outlier?


We agree that mandating now is probably not the most sensible course.

That said, if you are the outlier and suffer a severe vaccine AE, employer mandate or not, Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) and after the public health emergency is "over"  the _Vaccine_ Injury _Compensation_ Program (VICP) is what covers the costs and losses. The burden of proof is pretty low, vastly lower than trying to sue a drug company.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 10, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> Perhaps an overstatement on my part to say "no" events, but the events you reference have been of such small size as to be meaningless from a policy or public health perspective. There's risks from every vaccine - the seasonal flu shots have adverse events, too, for example - but this is about risk vs. reward, and the reward of vaccination invariably exceeds cost. In this case, with COVID, it very clearly does.
> 
> 
> Precedent may have been established, but costs and benefits change. Employers can make their judgement of risk/benefit & so can employees. Clearly this choice has been made in this case.
> ...


Honestly, I don't know where the line should be drawn.  How many employers require you to present your vaccination records to work there? All the diseases most of us were vaccinated against in childhood are also nasty diseases, yet I'm not aware of any employer requiring proof of those vaccinations.  Why is Covid different than those?

Setting aside the debate over whether or not they should even be able to mandate a vaccination, as far as differentiating between approved and EUA, I think the employer would have a minimally better chance to defend mandating an approved vaccine vs an EUA.  Doing so while under the EUA provides more arguments against it (not officially aporoved, mandating employees partake in essentially an experiment, unknown long term effects, etc...)


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 10, 2021)

@Summit , I am well aware that the long term effects argument doesn't hold much water.  I continue to use it because in my travels across the country, that is one of the concerns I hear people who don't want to get vaccinated use and I've yet to see anyone offer a valid counterpoint to it.  Until we can address it, it will continue to be a rallying point for those who don't want ti be vaccinated.


----------



## akflightmedic (Jun 10, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> Using emotion, hype, and hyperbole does no good for anyone.



I found this highly ironic.

Anyways, let's say tomorrow the FDA says "Full Approval". It is no longer "experimental" or "emergency use"...does your position change? 

If not, then tossing those words around repeatedly despite the volumes of data which far exceed any vaccine creation to date is not your actual concern.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 11, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> I found this highly ironic.
> 
> Anyways, let's say tomorrow the FDA says "Full Approval". It is no longer "experimental" or "emergency use"...does your position change?
> 
> If not, then tossing those words around repeatedly despite the volumes of data which far exceed any vaccine creation to date is not your actual concern.


So do I, especially since I haven't really stated what my position is on this matter.  I am questioning whether or not we want to allow an employer to do this, and if so where do we draw the line?

I am intentionally using those things in an effort to draw out quality responses and information that can be used to counter the arguments I hear against this policy from a wide variety of people.

 As I stated earlier, this is a different discussion if the vaccines had full approval because it would eliminate some of the low lying objections against it.


----------



## DrParasite (Jun 11, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> Anyways, let's say tomorrow the FDA says "Full Approval". It is no longer "experimental" or "emergency use"...does your position change?


I guess if you are actually saying you want FDA approval, or just using that an excuse to ignore the mountains of scientific evidence, and say "we don't need no stinking vaccine"

But instead of ponding if it's legal or moral, why not come up with an actual solution that satisfies both sides?

It is my opinion that no one should be forced to get vaccinated.  People have the right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare. However, there are actions to every consequence.  Should you contract whatever you could have been vaccinated against, it is my belief that you should be terminated immediately, because due to your own actions, you are now costing the company more money, with your health insurance coverages terminated that day.  workman's comp should also deny the claim, because this was an avoidable incident, but it is the employees right to make stupid decisions, and deal with the consequences.

Sound a little extreme?  you might think so, but it's consistent with my beliefs that your actions should have consequences, as well as it's up to each individual to decide what healthcare decisions they want to make about their body.


----------



## akflightmedic (Jun 11, 2021)

If the employer says I must wear a helmet, the employer provides a helmet, the employer trains me on helmet use, the employer updates me periodically on helmet use, the employer places 1000 signs around the site reminding me of helmet use....and I choose to not wear it and suffer a possible preventable injury....do you think I would remain employed? Do you think Workers Comp or Primary Insurance would try to deny?

I feel a lot of "no's" in that scenario. So how is mandating a vaccine to prevent a possible preventable illness any different? An illness, which if contracted could actually not only impact the employee, but also many other employees, patients, clients, vendors, etc? Seems like the potential harm of that one individual has far greater negative impact than that of the non-helmet wearer.

With that simple extrapolation, with my limited education, it seems to me that the employer has the right to mandate whatever they want in order to protect many, as opposed to the rights of the one, and the one has the right to seek employment elsewhere.

@ffemt8978 I called you out with those particular words, because while they are accurate, descriptive facts of the vaccine, the way you used them in context a couple times allowed me to infer (incorrectly?), that you were against it. There was a clear, subjective lean to me, the reader.

@DrParasite I am not against it. Did you quote me to just reinforce your lead out statement? My EMS service is 100% vaccinated by choice. I had my 1st in Dec and 2nd in Jan. Since then, I have assisted with vaccinating 1000s in  my state and others where I traveled to on short contracts.


----------



## Summit (Jun 11, 2021)

The problem with peoples' "right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare" when it comes to infectious disease is that they are making "stupid decisions" about the healthcare of others, for them, because the problem with infectious disease is that it is... INFECTIOUS!

Public Health as it relates to communicable disease, particularly vaccine preventable illness, is a team sport, not a libertarian rugged individualist fantasy.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 11, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> If the employer says I must wear a helmet, the employer provides a helmet, the employer trains me on helmet use, the employer updates me periodically on helmet use, the employer places 1000 signs around the site reminding me of helmet use....and I choose to not wear it and suffer a possible preventable injury....do you think I would remain employed? Do you think Workers Comp or Primary Insurance would try to deny?
> 
> I feel a lot of "no's" in that scenario. So how is mandating a vaccine to prevent a possible preventable illness any different? An illness, which if contracted could actually not only impact the employee, but also many other employees, patients, clients, vendors, etc? Seems like the potential harm of that one individual has far greater negative impact than that of the non-helmet wearer.
> 
> ...


I made that lean obvious for a reason...in an effort to elicit good arguments against it.

I am not opposed to approved vaccines being mandated in select professions, provided the employer can articulate a good reason for it.

I am opposed to employers mandating a vaccine that hasn't been officially approved yet because while the difference between approved and EUA may be negligible, in legal aspects there is still a difference.  Compare it to a new law that has been passed but not officially been signed into law yet.  This situation is similar to enforcing the law before it is actually a law.

I am opposed to employers dictating what an employee does in their personal life, and I am opposed to the do it or leave attitude displayed by the employer.

I have questions about this particular case that I'm still looking for answers to.  How many of the suspended employees do not interact with patients or the public in any capacity, and what is the justification for mandating those employees get vaccinated.  I am questioning why we're treating Covid different from other vaccines.


----------



## DrParasite (Jun 11, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> @DrParasite I am not against it. Did you quote me to just reinforce your lead out statement? My EMS service is 100% vaccinated by choice. I had my 1st in Dec and 2nd in Jan. Since then, I have assisted with vaccinating 1000s in  my state and others where I traveled to on short contracts.


Apologies, I edited my original post, which changed the reason I added that quote.  I think your question was 100% valid, and those who don't want to get vaccinated would find another stupid reason to say they don't want to take it.   Personally, I did the same thing as you did and got it when it was offered, but many of my fellow FFs still don't want it for stupid reasons (it was developed too fast, don't trust the government, it isn't FDA approved, there is a one in a billion chance that it causes me to grow a third leg, blah blah blah). 



Summit said:


> The problem with peoples' "right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare" when it comes to infectious disease is that they are making "stupid decisions" about the healthcare of others, for them, because the problem with infectious disease is that it is... INFECTIOUS!


how so?  shouldn't the others get the vaccine then, to prevent them from being infected?  which would negate the risk?  keeping in mind the population that can't get vaccinated is actually very very small...


----------



## akflightmedic (Jun 11, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> I am opposed to employers mandating a vaccine that hasn't been officially approved yet
> 
> I have questions about this particular case that I'm still looking for answers to.  How many of the suspended employees do not interact with patients or the public in any capacity, and what is the justification for mandating those employees get vaccinated.



So if the FDA slaps their stamp on it tomorrow, does your position change? 

So you mean how many of these staff are remote/work from home only? Cause if they present themselves to a work facility, they interact with MANY people throughout the day, including colleagues who do interact with more patients and public than the person in question. So unless they show up in a bubble suit, pack lunch, report to their self contained negative pressure office and then exit the same way, the question of do they interact with the public or patients seems moot.


----------



## mgr22 (Jun 11, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> I am questioning why we're treating Covid different from other vaccines.


I'm highlighting that last sentence of your reply because I think it's most important. In my opinion, COVID devolved from a medical issue to a political one soon after it was discovered, due primarily to anti-science messaging at the federal level. What I saw next wasn't just a lack of trust in science, but _pride_ in that lack of trust. I don't get that.

The subsequent focus on rights -- e.g., whether or not to wear masks, social-distance, or get vaccinated -- seemed to be stoked by that pride, rather than by sincere concerns about constitutional freedoms. Much of that exercise seemed counter-productive to me because it neglected the companion issue of when to exercise rights. For example, I have a right not to wear a mask, but sometimes I haven't exercised that right because there were masked people near me who I figured would feel more comfortable if I were masked, too. It's really not a big deal to take a pass on exercising rights sometimes.

I get a feeling there are some offended hospital employees who are overlooking basic patient-care issues. And perhaps there are some hospital executives with tunnel vision who haven't explored all routes of compromise.


----------



## Summit (Jun 11, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> how so?  shouldn't the others get the vaccine then, to prevent them from being infected?  which would negate the risk?  keeping in mind the population that can't get vaccinated is actually very very small...



Right now 1 in 6 American's can't be vaccinated due to age or health restrictions.

Further, 1 in 20 who received the mRNA vaccines are not immune (and don't know it), 1 in 4 who received J&J are not immune, and if Delta becomes predominant then 1 in 6 who received mRNA will not be immune.

So that is where the team sport comes in. You can individually reduce your chance of being a disease vector by vaccinating yourself, and protect yourself... but if enough people vaccinate then you can have Herd Immunity. Basically, any outbreak burns itself out naturally and a disease is no longer endemic.

If a relatively small percentage of people refuse to join the fight against a vaccine preventable illness, then they are deciding for the vast majority that the illness will remain endemic instead of eradicated, and a threat to the vaccinated folks who didn't seroconvert or those who couldn't vaccinate. That is what I mean about this not being an individual decision that only affects individuals. We could make all COVID cases imported if everyone got the jab.  We did that with Smallpox, Polio, Measles... until after that mass murderer Andrew Wakefield published his fraudulent paper that convinced enough individuals decided that they were going to impose their personal health decisions on others and now Measles is endemic in the US again after being exterminated through herd immunity (there were only imported cases).

Lower vaccination rates require more intrusive and draconian public health measures to stem the tide of an outbreak like quarantine, isolation, etc, so again, the individualist is setting the course against individual rights when refusing vaccines.

Read more at the link... I wrote that 6 years ago, won an award for it.








						Understanding Herd Immunity from Vaccination - How much is enough?
					

Herd immunity, or community immunity, is a great term we hear bandied about lately. Herd Immunity means lowering a populations susceptibility to a disease to the point where a disease cannot remain endemic, introduced outbreaks fade without intervention, and the vulnerable are protected by the im...




					allnurses.com


----------



## Kevinf (Jun 11, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> with your health insurance coverages terminated that day


I'm against a power fantasy where people are left to suffer and rot in the gutter because they aren't employed and can't afford basic healthcare. That's quite a sadistic take on consequences isn't it? People txt and drive and if they get into an accident, we don't say... well it was THEIR FAULT so let's just leave them to die in agony in this mangled up vehicle. No... we help them, because we're better than that as a society. What went so very wrong that has us thinking that taking away someone's access to health care as a punitive measure is a laudable act?

This notion that basic help and healthcare is reserved for "the worthy" needs to go away, fast.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jun 11, 2021)

Summit said:


> The problem with peoples' "right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare" when it comes to infectious disease is that they are making "stupid decisions" about the healthcare of others, for them, because the problem with infectious disease is that it is... INFECTIOUS!
> 
> Public Health as it relates to communicable disease, particularly vaccine preventable illness, is a team sport, not a libertarian rugged individualist fantasy.


Mock the idea of autonomy and self-determination all you want. I  still fail to see how, with nearly 60% of the public vaccinated and another percentage having some natural immunity and all the metrics improving with every measured interval, that we feel we need to force anyone to be vaccinated against their will. Is firing people who don't want to be vaccinated really the only option here? Why is it that every time we are faced with questions on how to deal with an issue, the default answer in the minds of so many people is always the use of force or coercion to make people to do what we think they should do, and screw any consideration of their rights as an individual? As if there is just_no_other_way to protect the very small subset of patients who are both susceptible to severe COVID and unable to be vaccinated themselves.  




mgr22 said:


> I'm highlighting that last sentence of your reply because I think it's most important. In my opinion, COVID devolved from a medical issue to a political one soon after it was discovered, due primarily to anti-science messaging at the federal level. What I saw next wasn't just a lack of trust in science, but _pride_ in that lack of trust. I don't get that.


No, COVID was equally politicized by those from all shades of the political spectrum, and that was inevitable no matter which major party was in charge. Every issue is politicized these days, and the bigger the issue the worse it is. As far as "anti science" messaging, there was so much miscommunication, incompetence, political opportunism and outright lying on the part of the very institutions that we are supposed to have the utmost trust in that I don't even know what "anti science" means in the context of last March and April. How many times were we told "we have to follow the science.....it is absolutely critical that we all do this thing" only to find out a few months or a year later that that science was wrong the thing that was absolutely critical probably had little positive impact and may have even had a net negative effect on society.


----------



## mgr22 (Jun 11, 2021)

Carlos Danger said:


> No, COVID was equally politicized by those from all shades of the political spectrum, and that was inevitable no matter which major party was in charge. Every issue is politicized these days, and the bigger the issue the worse it is. As far as "anti science" messaging, there was so much miscommunication, incompetence, political opportunism and outright lying on the part of the very institutions that we are supposed to have the utmost trust in that I don't even know what "anti science" means in the context of last March and April. How many times were we told "we have to follow the science.....it is absolutely critical that we all do this thing" only to find out a few months or a year later that that science was wrong the thing that was absolutely critical probably had little positive impact and may have even had a net negative effect on society.


You must be confusing me with someone else. I didn't mention a political party or politician.


----------



## johnrsemt (Jun 11, 2021)

For FF8978 and others that say no employers put the Flu Vaccine as a requirement for employment:  US Dept of Defense Medical Command:  any medical worker, has to have the flu vaccine or a very good reason for not having it:  documented severe allergic reaction (not just saying it makes me sick, but proof of hospitalization) or religious exemption and you better be practicing that religion and have in your records.  You don't get the annual flu vaccine by a certain date, you don't come back to work.  
We had an employee who was scheduled weekends, who had to drive 4 hours round trip on his own time to come into the clinic to get the vaccine to work a shift after the cutoff, because he was sent home the previous weekend


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 11, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> So if the FDA slaps their stamp on it tomorrow, does your position change?
> 
> So you mean how many of these staff are remote/work from home only? Cause if they present themselves to a work facility, they interact with MANY people throughout the day, including colleagues who do interact with more patients and public than the person in question. So unless they show up in a bubble suit, pack lunch, report to their self contained negative pressure office and then exit the same way, the question of do they interact with the public or patients seems moot.


Having worked in a hospital, I know there are several employees that have no patient or public interactions...mostly in administrative and maintenance positions.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jun 11, 2021)

johnrsemt said:


> For FF8978 and others that say no employers put the Flu Vaccine as a requirement for employment:  US Dept of Defense Medical Command:  any medical worker, has to have the flu vaccine or a very good reason for not having it:  documented severe allergic reaction (not just saying it makes me sick, but proof of hospitalization) or religious exemption and you better be practicing that religion and have in your records.  You don't get the annual flu vaccine by a certain date, you don't come back to work.
> We had an employee who was scheduled weekends, who had to drive 4 hours round trip on his own time to come into the clinic to get the vaccine to work a shift after the cutoff, because he was sent home the previous weekend


Department of Defense can get away with a lot more than most employers.


----------



## akflightmedic (Jun 12, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> Having worked in a hospital, I know there are several employees that have no patient or public interactions...mostly in administrative and maintenance positions.


So they enter and exit without passing a single person, they visit no vending machines, they avoid the cafeteria, and they have zero interaction with colleagues, subordinates or superiors?? Again, this type of person should work remotely...


----------



## DrParasite (Jun 12, 2021)

Wow, someone jumped to some conclusions pretty quickly, and assumed many facts that were not in evidence.  


Kevinf said:


> I'm against a power fantasy where people are left to suffer and rot in the gutter because they aren't employed and can't afford basic healthcare.


I never once said we should have people suffer and rot in the gutter if they aren't employed and can't afford basic health care.


Kevinf said:


> That's quite a sadistic take on consequences isn't it?


no; it's called actions have consequences.  this was an avoidable infection.  you CHOSE not to be vaccinated (your body, your choice, I can respect that) but due to your choices, now the company has to pay more to cover your spot while you recover.  the insurance has to pay more to cover your expenses.  both of these could have been avoided, but you chose to not get vaccinated.  oh, none of this should be a surprise to the affected person; that would be unfair. they should be told about it, using the basis of informed consent.  they know the risks, and do so anyway.


Kevinf said:


> People txt and drive and if they get into an accident, we don't say... well it was THEIR FAULT so let's just leave them to die in agony in this mangled up vehicle.


first of all, you are the only one who they should die in agony.  I've taken drunk drivers to the hospital after they crashed.  never once did I leave them to die in agony.  however, just because they are treated, doesn't mean that someone else should pay the bill.  and if their insurance company denied the claim, because of the clause that said they won't cover injuries related to drunk driving, then actions have consequences, and the driver made the choice


Kevinf said:


> No... we help them, because we're better than that as a society. What went so very wrong that has us thinking that taking away someone's access to health care as a punitive measure is a laudable act?


it's not punative at all.  the person assumed the risk.  they knew the chances and made a choice.  it's no different than not paying your homeowners insurance (because you've never needed it) and then having a house fire... should the insurance company cut you a check?  


Kevinf said:


> This notion that basic help and healthcare is reserved for "the worthy" needs to go away, fast.


I'm not sure why you are projecting.... basic help and healthcare should be available for everyone (believe it or not, I actually support the idea of a taxpayer funded healthcare system).  And I have never, ever, refused to treat a person based on their ability to pay.   and if it's an emergency, you should receive treatment (ever heard of EMTALA?). but as a realist, good treatment isn't free, and preventative care (such as vaccinations) are often much more cost effective than reactionary treatments.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jun 12, 2021)

mgr22 said:


> You must be confusing me with someone else. I didn't mention a political party or politician.


I'm not confusing you with someone else. I also didn't mention any political party or politician, nor did I ascribe any political motivation to your post. 

To put what I meant more succinctly: While COVID becoming heavily politicized was inevitable, an awful lot of folks have been accused of being "anti science" when their stance was really just skepticism and mistrust, which frankly was entirely rational and warranted. In some cases what was derided as the "anti science" stance turned out later to be correct.

Regardless of the topic, very few people have any real understanding of "the science", even those who are quick to accuse others of being "anti science". People choose which side of an issue to line up on based more on personal biases than anything else, and this is even true of the scientists themselves and the interventions that they recommend.


----------



## Kevinf (Jun 12, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> I'm not sure why you are projecting


Your entire post screamed, "let em rot." I'm not sure how you want others to interpret "if they get Covid by not wearing a mask, they should be fired *AND IMMEDIATELY LOSE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.*" Even though that isn't how it works anywhere in America (paid through the month at least, then COBRA). So therefore, that is how you desire it to work. So you've actively advocated for an even more brutal system than what we have.

Your post doesn't scream compassion to anyone. If you don't like how people read that, look inward instead of trying to shout down the person calling you out on your twisted take. The consequence for not taking covid precautions is contracting covid. Nothing more or less than that. Everything else is a societal thing, and we get to decide what those consequences are. I'd like to think we're at a point where we recognize that basic human dignity requires affordable access to modern healthcare, healthy food, and safe housing and we can keep working toward making that happen, instead of away from because "my taxes."

We also need to understand that as long as "muh freedoms!" are a talking point in this country, then people are going to do stupid things that general society preferred they didn't. Like not wear a mask during a pandemic. We either accept that burden and pay for it as society, or we're willing to mandate mask use and vaccines. If we don't mandate, that means being willing to pick up the tab when our rules as a society hurt members of our own society. Because a plague-ridden population does nobody any good.


----------



## Ensihoitaja (Jun 12, 2021)

johnrsemt said:


> For FF8978 and others that say no employers put the Flu Vaccine as a requirement for employment:  US Dept of Defense Medical Command:  any medical worker, has to have the flu vaccine or a very good reason for not having it:  documented severe allergic reaction (not just saying it makes me sick, but proof of hospitalization) or religious exemption and you better be practicing that religion and have in your records.  You don't get the annual flu vaccine by a certain date, you don't come back to work.
> We had an employee who was scheduled weekends, who had to drive 4 hours round trip on his own time to come into the clinic to get the vaccine to work a shift after the cutoff, because he was sent home the previous weekend


My employer (not the military) has had mandatory flu vaccination for years.


----------



## GMCmedic (Jun 13, 2021)

In first federal ruling on vaccine mandates, judge sides with Houston hospital, dismissing claims from staff resisters
					

Houston Methodist was the first U.S. hospital to mandate employee vaccines and suspended 170 who refused. The dismissal could have a ripple effect.




					www.yahoo.com
				




A federal judge has thrown out the argument in Houston. Not surprised here, Icthink it was a pretty weak argument and obvious that the federal law is not applicable to private entities.


----------



## Summit (Jun 13, 2021)

Apparently the lawyer for the employees was idiotic enough to compare their situation to victims of Holocaust medical experiments in Nazi concentration camps! 🤬


----------



## mgr22 (Jun 13, 2021)

Summit said:


> Apparently the lawyer for the employees was idiotic enough to compare their situation to victims of Holocaust medical experiments in Nazi concentration camps! 🤬


Remarkable. You'd think educated people would know better than to suggest such analogies.


----------



## CCCSD (Jun 13, 2021)

mgr22 said:


> Remarkable. You'd think educated people would know better than to suggest such analogies.


Nope. All the rage with “victims”…


----------



## Bullets (Jun 17, 2021)

What liability does a provider or an employer have if they are unvaccinated, contract COVID and pass that on to a patient who eventually dies of complications of it? What if they can prove that the patient entered the ER for a complaint, tested negative then, went upstairs for that complaint and was treated by an unvaccinated floor nurse or tech who became symptomatic a few days later after treating this patient? What if that patient then tests positive and has an adverse event?


----------



## DrParasite (Jun 17, 2021)

Bullets said:


> What liability does a provider or an employer have if they are unvaccinated, contract COVID and pass that on to a patient who eventually dies of complications of it? What if they can prove that the patient entered the ER for a complaint, tested negative then, went upstairs for that complaint and was treated by an unvaccinated floor nurse or tech who became symptomatic a few days later after treating this patient? What if that patient then tests positive and has an adverse event?


Hospital-acquired infections are a huge risk, but is COVID that much more of a liability than many of the other infections that occur?

the CDC even has a webpages with a ton of statistics on how often it occurs






						Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) | HAI | CDC
					






					www.cdc.gov


----------



## Summit (Jun 17, 2021)

The solution to financially incentivize the prevention of HAI/HAC, which are regarded as avoidable: first they removed the perverse incentive where a hospital could charge profitably for the extended/additional care required to treat the hospital acquired illness. Second the government and insurance agencies said that the hospital can't even charge at all for the HAI and has to eat all of the cost associated as well as potentially getting lower quality scores that can reduce the hospital's ratings and future reimbursement rates across the board. Preventing these illnesses is vastly cheaper for the health system vs bearing the cost, not to mention ethically better.


----------



## CPTSmokeEaterNREMT31 (Jun 21, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> Hospital suspends 178 health care workers for failing to get COVID vaccine
> 
> 
> They have two weeks to become fully vaccinated or they face termination.
> ...


So, I think that this borders on a company having their right to do what they want to do, are entitled to do, and a violation of employee rights and HIPAA.  If an employee chooses to NOT get the vaccination, then, I think that is on them.  If it were me as an administrator, I would make sure that it was noted in their file, and also there would have to be an addendum to the SOP/SOG which states that an employee who refuses to take the vaccination, then test positive for COVID19 then they simply are not entitled to the get to use any extra sick time.  I personally, do not understand the whole "anti-vax" mindset, my oldest daughter is an anti-vax person, and eventually, I am going to text her and find out that line of thinking.  *Personally, *I did a career in the Army, and you get so used to simply rolling up your sleeve and getting a shot, you don't care.  I was offered it, I wrote the SOP/SOG for my department, towards my finalizing it, the Chief told me to put the COVID19 addendum in there.  We are a volunteer department.  You would think that our people cannot be told what to do.  Personally, I am of the mindset, that if they want to get the vax, it is tracked, we have not dropped the Addendum, we made it permanent actually.  Our people *can *refuse the vax, however, they understand that they will not receive any workman's comp if they do not get the vax, and they do not follow the established addendum protocol.  We also have the same types of protocols when it comes to what members wear under their Bunker Gear and fighting wildland fires.  We had an ex-member get poison oak at one time because he was not dressed out properly in his wildland gear.  He was out of the game.  He attempted to file workman's comp on us.  *Personally, *I did not think it was a horrible thing, but our insurance company said he had to use his companies workman's comp first and *then *he could file with our insurance company.

For a company to take the thought of "suspending" personnel is not something that I would personally agree to.  Make an addendum.  Make sure that they understand that they cannot claim anything relating to COVID-19.  However, to trample of the rights to medical care, is not something that should be allowed to happen.  What next?  Are they going to make the decision that my living will and DNR does not apply because they feel that everyone wants to go on living?  So, I do not agree with the decision.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Jun 22, 2021)

CPTSmokeEaterNREMT31 said:


> So, I think that this borders on a company having their right to do what they want to do, are entitled to do, and a violation of employee rights and HIPAA.  If an employee chooses to NOT get the vaccination, then, I think that is on them.  If it were me as an administrator, I would make sure that it was noted in their file, and also there would have to be an addendum to the SOP/SOG which states that an employee who refuses to take the vaccination, then test positive for COVID19 then they simply are not entitled to the get to use any extra sick time.  I personally, do not understand the whole "anti-vax" mindset, my oldest daughter is an anti-vax person, and eventually, I am going to text her and find out that line of thinking.  *Personally, *I did a career in the Army, and you get so used to simply rolling up your sleeve and getting a shot, you don't care.  I was offered it, I wrote the SOP/SOG for my department, towards my finalizing it, the Chief told me to put the COVID19 addendum in there.  We are a volunteer department.  You would think that our people cannot be told what to do.  Personally, I am of the mindset, that if they want to get the vax, it is tracked, we have not dropped the Addendum, we made it permanent actually.  Our people *can *refuse the vax, however, they understand that they will not receive any workman's comp if they do not get the vax, and they do not follow the established addendum protocol.  We also have the same types of protocols when it comes to what members wear under their Bunker Gear and fighting wildland fires.  We had an ex-member get poison oak at one time because he was not dressed out properly in his wildland gear.  He was out of the game.  He attempted to file workman's comp on us.  *Personally, *I did not think it was a horrible thing, but our insurance company said he had to use his companies workman's comp first and *then *he could file with our insurance company.
> 
> For a company to take the thought of "suspending" personnel is not something that I would personally agree to.  Make an addendum.  Make sure that they understand that they cannot claim anything relating to COVID-19.  However, to trample of the rights to medical care, is not something that should be allowed to happen.  What next?  Are they going to make the decision that my living will and DNR does not apply because they feel that everyone wants to go on living?  So, I do not agree with the decision.


How is this a HIPAA violation?


----------



## DrParasite (Jun 22, 2021)

CPTSmokeEaterNREMT31 said:


> We are a volunteer department.  You would think that our people cannot be told what to do.


That's actually grossly inaccurate.  the only time someone volunteers is when they submit the application to join.  After that, they are treated as employees of the organization, and agree to follow the rules set forth by the organization (SOPs, etc).  And if they don't follow those rules, there should be consequences.


CPTSmokeEaterNREMT31 said:


> For a company to take the thought of "suspending" personnel is not something that I would personally agree to.  Make an addendum.  Make sure that they understand that they cannot claim anything relating to COVID-19.  However, to trample of the rights to medical care, is not something that should be allowed to happen.  What next?  Are they going to make the decision that my living will and DNR does not apply because they feel that everyone wants to go on living?  So, I do not agree with the decision.


You are comparing apples and watermelons, and using a hyperbolic example that has little factual basis., but let's follow that through: the company has a right to set forth its rules.  If you don't agree with them, you are free to terminate your employment at any time.  BTW there is a historical and legal president for mandating vaccines








						Mandated vaccinations have historic — and legal — precedent
					

The United States Supreme Court, more than 100 years ago, ruled that the public health power of government extends to mandating vaccines against highly communicable and often lethal disea…




					thehill.com


----------



## DrParasite (Jun 23, 2021)

The judge rules on the lawsuit and commented on the comments from the attorney:


> The Houston Methodist employees who filed the lawsuit likened their situation to medical experiments performed on unwilling victims in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes called that comparison “reprehensible” and said claims made in the lawsuit that the vaccines are experimental and dangerous are false.
> 
> Hughes, who dismissed the lawsuit on June 12, said that if the employees didn’t like the requirement, they could go work elsewhere.











						Houston hospital workers fired, resign over COVID-19 vaccine
					

DALLAS (AP) — More than 150 employees at a Houston hospital system who refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine have been fired or resigned after a judge dismissed an employee lawsuit over the vaccine requirement.




					apnews.com


----------



## The Possum (Jul 25, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> Hospital suspends 178 health care workers for failing to get COVID vaccine
> 
> 
> They have two weeks to become fully vaccinated or they face termination.
> ...


Some people cannot do these vaccines. People who are allergic to penicillin or amoxicillin like my wife. Those ingredients are inside these shots for Covid 19. I'm sure that companies mandating workers to get shots would be something that could definitely be challenged in the court of law. I did get the shot because my work site was strongly recommending it and they gave it to us for free. I took Pfizer and have not had any reactions.


----------



## GMCmedic (Jul 25, 2021)

The Possum said:


> People who are allergic to penicillin or amoxicillin like my wife. Those ingredients are inside these shots for Covid 19.



Source?


----------



## The Possum (Jul 25, 2021)

GMCmedic said:


> Source?


CDC webpage.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Jul 25, 2021)

The Possum said:


> Some people cannot do these vaccines. People who are allergic to penicillin or amoxicillin like my wife. Those ingredients are inside these shots for Covid 19. I'm sure that companies mandating workers to get shots would be something that could definitely be challenged in the court of law. I did get the shot because my work site was strongly recommending it and they gave it to us for free. I took Pfizer and have not had any reactions.


Uhhhh, that is 100% false information. I have an allergy to amoxicillin and received the Pfizer shot with no issues.

The only thing that the CDC recommends is that the vaccinator increase the time they monitor you after the shot if you have a severe allergy.

The COVID vaccine does not contain penicillin nor amoxicillin.


----------



## mgr22 (Jul 25, 2021)

The Possum said:


> CDC webpage.


I just checked the CDC website and didn't see any recommendation against getting vaccinated for people with penicillin allergies. Under the section headed "If You Have Allergies Not Related to Vaccines," it says, "CDC recommends that people get vaccinated even if they have a history of severe allergic reactions to injectable medications...People with a history of allergies to oral medications or a family history of severe allergic reactions may also get vaccinated."


----------



## CCCSD (Jul 25, 2021)

Pesky facts.


----------



## DrParasite (Jul 26, 2021)

The Possum said:


> I'm sure that companies mandating workers to get shots would be something that could definitely be challenged in the court of law.


they could challenge, it, but they would likely lose.  there is legal precedent for this, and cases have already been tossed.

many places are providing exemptions due to medical conditions and religious reasons.  your wife's PCP would need to provide documentation for what she can't get it.  But methinks your wife's doctor would not be willing to attach his name to a factually inaccurate reason not to get the vacine.


----------



## GMCmedic (Jul 26, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> they could challenge, it, but they would likely lose. there is legal precedent for this, and cases have already been tossed.



There is legal precedent for requiring approved vaccines, not EUA. EUA vaccines have never before been distributed at a scale worth challenging, so as it stands it is merely presumed precedence.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 26, 2021)

GMCmedic said:


> There is legal precedent for requiring approved vaccines, not EUA. EUA vaccines have never before been distributed at a scale worth challenging, so as it stands it is merely presumed precedence.


Except that precedent has effectively been established in this case already when the judge tossed the lawsuit.


----------



## GMCmedic (Jul 26, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> Except that precedent has effectively been established in this case already when the judge tossed the lawsuit.


It was tossed on a conspiracy theorist argument, that doesn't set precedent.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 26, 2021)

GMCmedic said:


> It was tossed on a conspiracy theorist argument, that doesn't set precedent.


I said effectively a precedent.  It's going to make it that much harder when the next case is filed.


----------



## Summit (Jul 26, 2021)

GMCmedic said:


> It was tossed on a conspiracy theorist argument, that doesn't set precedent.


They had some wild arguments but those weren't the only merits argued. It lost hard period.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest healthcare agency in the USA with almost 400K employees. Directive says Vaccine mandatory for all employees within 8 weeks. I'd expect FDA approval in the next month maybe two, and most healthcare organizations will follow suit on mandation.


----------



## akflightmedic (Jul 26, 2021)

Look at what CA announced today...mandatory vaccines for ALL state employees and healthcare workers. If you choose to not be vaccinated, you will be subjected to frequent testing.


----------



## CCCSD (Jul 27, 2021)

Yep. Weekly testing, on your dime.


----------



## Tigger (Jul 27, 2021)

The Possum said:


> CDC webpage.


For the future, that's not a "source" if you don't include an actual link. We aren't going to go search for the validity of your claim, please provide us with a direct reference.


----------



## Intothefog (Jul 27, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> Look at what CA announced today...mandatory vaccines for ALL state employees and healthcare workers. If you choose to not be vaccinated, you will be subjected to frequent testing.



I’ve held out getting the vaccine but kinda knew at some point it was going to get to this. All this hypocrisy and flip flop decision making it’s hard not to second guess anyone at this point. Now I’m forced to get the jab or lose my job. Getting tested twice a week isn’t realistic. If I missed one test what happens? Do I get shown the door?


----------



## DrParasite (Jul 27, 2021)

Intothefog said:


> I’ve held out getting the vaccine but kinda knew at some point it was going to get to this. All this hypocrisy and flip flop decision making it’s hard not to second guess anyone at this point. Now I’m forced to get the jab or lose my job. Getting tested twice a week isn’t realistic. If I missed one test what happens? Do I get shown the door?


idk... that's a question for your employer.  however, if that is the condition they say of not getting the vaccine, I would make sure it was in my calendar where and when I was going to get my test from, and never miss an appointment.


----------



## Tigger (Jul 27, 2021)

Intothefog said:


> I’ve held out getting the vaccine but kinda knew at some point it was going to get to this. All this hypocrisy and flip flop decision making it’s hard not to second guess anyone at this point. Now I’m forced to get the jab or lose my job. Getting tested twice a week isn’t realistic. If I missed one test what happens? Do I get shown the door?


Flip flop decision making could also be called rolling with the punches. Science is uncertain, and sometimes it’s better to pivot the guidance rather than just ride something out.


----------



## mgr22 (Jul 27, 2021)

Intothefog said:


> I’ve held out getting the vaccine but kinda knew at some point it was going to get to this. All this hypocrisy and flip flop decision making it’s hard not to second guess anyone at this point. Now I’m forced to get the jab or lose my job. Getting tested twice a week isn’t realistic. If I missed one test what happens? Do I get shown the door?


Seems pretty simple to me. You have the right not to get vaccinated. Companies have the right not to employ you.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Jul 27, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> Look at what CA announced today...mandatory vaccines for ALL state employees and healthcare workers. If you choose to not be vaccinated, you will be subjected to frequent testing.


Which I think is fair and reasonable, especially when balanced against mandatory vaccination, which my position on is well known. 

Although I'm not sure I think making the employees pay for the testing is fair. This is CA after all; not exactly known for worrying at all about the cost of state employee benefits. Isn't this the state that pays for gender reassignment surgery for inmates?


----------



## Comfort Care (Aug 2, 2021)

Intothefog said:


> I’ve held out getting the vaccine but kinda knew at some point it was going to get to this. All this hypocrisy and flip flop decision making it’s hard not to second guess anyone at this point. Now I’m forced to get the jab or lose my job. Getting tested twice a week isn’t realistic. If I missed one test what happens? Do I get shown the


Sounds like your in a pickle, I would opt for the jab brother, sound like a pain in the *** to deal with testing and so forth. We just admitted a few patients for ECMO due to unvaccinated COVID. Would hate to see you with rectal tube, foley, dobhoff FT, OG, Cordis, Central lines, PRONED, paralyzed (ever heard of Nimbex?), sedated, on pressors. true story😁


----------



## mrhunt (Aug 3, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> "Litany of compelling rationale for an employer to try and protect the employee"
> 
> And the road to Hell is paved in good intentions.
> 
> Where do you draw the line?  May an employer require you be a non-smoking, non-drinking, 4 day a week exercising, body fat percentage of less than 2%, genetically screened for minimal risks to cancer?  All of these things carry risks to employer staffing availability, and all have been viewed as "the greatest threat" to a person's health at one time or another.


I worked at a hospital where my glucose was LITERALLY 2 points above Their own hospital "normal" range and i was considered unhealthy and given a writeup for it IN ORIENTATION. Stupid, yes. 

Most flight providers have strict weight limits due to their job obviously (sorta goes with the BMI standards you speak of)

A huge amount of hospital areas ban smoking by employees as well as all pts on their property and discourage its use.

This stuff is already happening in one way or another....


----------



## Summit (Aug 3, 2021)

Denver mayor just mandated all LEO, FF, and hospital workers get vaccinated.


----------



## DrParasite (Aug 3, 2021)

mrhunt said:


> I worked at a hospital where my glucose was LITERALLY 2 points above Their own hospital "normal" range and i was considered unhealthy and given a writeup for it IN ORIENTATION. Stupid, yes.


how did they know?  I've worked in a hospital, and I've never had a random glucose test


----------



## E tank (Aug 5, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> how did they know?  I've worked in a hospital, and I've never had a random glucose test


Some places have wellness incentive programs that are voluntary (mandatory) where you can get breaks on insurance premiums and other stuff. They weigh you, measure height, blood pressure and BG at some intervals...I don't participate because I'm a contractor, but it does rub me the wrong way....


----------



## Uclabruin103 (Sep 10, 2021)

Is this the pushback that the polio and measles vaccines for when they were introduced?  How are we this "advanced," and people choose not to believe in vaccines?  I'm sure people were doing anything to get their loved ones the polio vaccine, and back then you actually could get polio from the vaccine (the Cutter incident).  More people die from Covid than the measles, but you don't see everyone up on arms about a measles vaccine. And what do you know, a virus that's almost non-existent when everyone is vaccinated. 

How do all these people spout this, "I have a right to choose what goes in my body," refute that their employers also have a right to choose who works for them?  The hypocrisy just drives me bananas.    

I just want this to be over so badly so I can at least have one less virus/disease to worry about possibly hurting my children. 

(Yes, I know this is probably not going to go away any time soon).


----------



## ffemt8978 (Sep 10, 2021)

Uclabruin103 said:


> Is this the pushback that the polio and measles vaccines for when they were introduced?  How are we this "advanced," and people choose not to believe in vaccines?  I'm sure people were doing anything to get their loved ones the polio vaccine, and back then you actually could get polio from the vaccine (the Cutter incident).  More people die from Covid than the measles, but you don't see everyone up on arms about a measles vaccine. And what do you know, a virus that's almost non-existent when everyone is vaccinated.
> 
> How do all these people spout this, "I have a right to choose what goes in my body," refute that their employers also have a right to choose who works for them?  The hypocrisy just drives me bananas.
> 
> ...


It's never going away.  We've never managed to defeat a virus that has an animal pool to provide future mutations.

Also, some places are bound by collective bargaining agreements that determine what an employee may be terminated for, and detail the steps employers must take to change the terms of employment mid-contract.


----------



## HardKnocks (Dec 20, 2021)

These two other important issues are being ignored;

1) Failing to accurately track the current rate of Natural Immunity for the Millions of Healthy Adults who have already cycled through the virus and;

2) The Vaccines are failing to stopping the transmission and REINFECTION RATE at such a high percentage, that getting tested every 14 Days  vs a Mandatory Vaccine is more of a positive way on controlling the spread.

Until the Profit is eliminated in this Plandemic.....it'll remain in play here well after George Jetson finally receives his patent for his Peek-a-Boo Prober Capsules..


----------



## Kevinf (Dec 21, 2021)

Current CDC data as of Dec 20th 2021:

*Infections:*
Unvaccinated: 451 cases per 100k
Vaccinated: 134 cases per 100k
Boosted: 48 cases per 100k

*Deaths:*
Unvaccinated: 6.1 deaths per 100k
Vaccinated: 0.5 deaths per 100k
Boosted: 0.1 deaths per 100k

Looks like they're REALLY good at lowering the DEATH rate at least... but let's focus on the "reinfection rate" instead. That's probably more important.



HardKnocks said:


> ...current rate of *Natural Immunity*...


----------



## DrParasite (Dec 21, 2021)

Kevinf said:


> Current CDC data as of Dec 20th 2021:
> 
> Looks like they're REALLY good at lowering the DEATH rate at least... but let's focus on the "reinfection rate" instead. That's probably more important.
> 
> View attachment 5443


All of the reports says Omicron is suuuuper contagious, but suuuuuuper mild.  So getting it is ehhhh, however, if getting it makes you immune or decreases the impact that the delta variant and the original COVID-10 virus, is it that big of a deal?  bad cold, stay home so you don't spread it, but it's not like it's causing people to die or to be hospitalized.   It's almost as effective as the vaccine (which is occurring more and more according to the news).

I still think everyone should get vaccinated, but people have the right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare


----------



## EpiEMS (Dec 21, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> I still think everyone should get vaccinated, but people have the right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare



Agree with the two caveats:
(1) they need to bear the full financial burden
(2) they can’t impose any externalities on others (spreading)

#2 is where infectious disease necessarily differs from other conditions.


----------



## DrParasite (Dec 21, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> Agree with the two caveats:
> (1) they need to bear the full financial burden


Why?  do we require the 600lb person to pay the full cost for any costs associated to their weight?

if a person smokes, do we require them to pay the the full financial burden of any illnesses that can be tied to smoking?

If someone drives under the influence, and crashes their car, resulting in injuries, we  do we require them to pay the the full financial burden, or does insurance cover it?

What makes this illness, any different than anything else?  Do we require those with the flu, who end up hospitalized, to "bear the full financial burden"?  Even if they don't get the flu shot... why should this be any different?


EpiEMS said:


> (2) they can’t impose any externalities on others (spreading)


Ever had someone who was sick come to work?  Ever had a parent tell their kid even though they had a runny nose they are good to go to school?  and besides, if you are vaccinated, you have nothing to worry about right?  isn't that why the government is mandating these vaccines?


EpiEMS said:


> #2 is where infectious disease necessarily differs from other conditions.


if you are worried, you should get vaccinated.  and wear a mask.  and stay home.  and avoid contact with any individuals.  and wash your hands.

We have had diseases before hand, but 18+ months after 2 weeks to flatten the curve, I think we are moving further away from the known science, and moving more towards fear mongering for the sake of power.

After all, per some government officials, we should be mandated to wear masks for the next 100 years while on an airplane, despite their amazing filtration systems, and almost 0 cases of an infection occurring from a plane from an asymptomatic person to others.  Explain that one to be, especially if there is no medical reason to support it needing to be mandated (but if you want to wear a mask, because it makes you feel safer, by all means do so).


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 21, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> Why?  do we require the 600lb person to pay the full cost for any costs associated to their weight?
> 
> if a person smokes, do we require them to pay the the full financial burden of any illnesses that can be tied to smoking?
> 
> ...


Interesting points...is this about controlling the disease, or using the disease as a means to increase control?

While that would be cannonballing down the proverbial rabbit hole, it is not without precedent in our history.  I'm not sure we've reached that point yet, but I will say this.  If we are to trust the science and experts, why has their message changed so much over the duration of this disease?  If your answer is that it changes because they've learned new information, wouldn't that imply that their previous recommendations were based upon incomplete or faulty information?


----------



## EpiEMS (Dec 21, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> Why? do we require the 600lb person to pay the full cost for any costs associated to their weight?
> 
> if a person smokes, do we require them to pay the the full financial burden of any illnesses that can be tied to smoking?
> 
> ...



The answer to most of those is - we do not but we ought to. My normative view is that people should bear financial consequences for behavior that you reference. Smoking is actually a great example, cigarettes are heavily taxed and that tax revenue helps pay for, among other things, care for the morbidity they cause. Same goes for car insurance - people who get DWIs have more expensive insurance (even though it’s forward looking, it still is a cost they bear) and have financial skin in the game from litigation ex-post. 

Vaccination mitigates but does not eliminate the externality.


----------



## akflightmedic (Dec 21, 2021)

ffemt8978 said:


> If your answer is that it changes because they've learned new information, wouldn't that imply that their previous recommendations were based upon incomplete or faulty information?



Logic Fail here/Logical Fallacy. 

No, it does NOT imply recommendations were incomplete  nor faulty. It implies that the recommendations were made with the available information at the time. While you may argue semantics on this distinction, I disagree.

Huge difference between making recommendations based on inconclusive evidence versus making recommendation stating this is our best recommendation based on what we know at this moment. That is science in a nutshell. Ever evolving. If you want to take your argument, it could literally be applied to every known medical procedure, drug, or treatment algorithm.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 21, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> Logic Fail here/Logical Fallacy.
> 
> No, it does NOT imply recommendations were incomplete  nor faulty. It implies that the recommendations were made with the available information at the time. While you may argue semantics on this distinction, I disagree.
> 
> Huge difference between making recommendations based on inconclusive evidence versus making recommendation stating this is our best recommendation based on what we know at this moment. That is science in a nutshell. Ever evolving. If you want to take your argument, it could literally be applied to every known medical procedure, drug, or treatment algorithm.


Well said.


----------



## Summit (Dec 21, 2021)

DrParasite said:


> All of the reports says Omicron is suuuuper contagious, but suuuuuuper mild.


Citation that it's "super mild"? Something that isn't a news article? Something that is peer reviewed (or at least pending)


----------



## EpiEMS (Dec 21, 2021)

Summit said:


> Citation that it's "super mild"? Something that isn't a news article? Something that is peer reviewed (or at least pending)



Seems like it’s plausibly less likely to cause hospitalization under some control conditions(see, for e.g.: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268116v1)

“When compared to non-SGTF infections, we found that SGTF infections had an 80% lower odds being admitted to hospital, but did not differ in the risk of severe disease among hospitalised individuals. When compared to Delta infections, SGTF infections were associated with a 70% lower odds of severe disease.”


----------



## Summit (Dec 22, 2021)

EpiEMS said:


> Seems like it’s plausibly less likely to cause hospitalization under some control conditions(see, for e.g.: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268116v1)
> 
> “When compared to non-SGTF infections, we found that SGTF infections had an 80% lower odds being admitted to hospital, but did not differ in the risk of severe disease among hospitalised individuals. When compared to Delta infections, SGTF infections were associated with a 70% lower odds of severe disease.”


"It is difficult to disentangle the relative contribution of high levels of previous population immunity versus intrinsic lower virulence
to the observed lower disease severity. Our finding of no difference in severity in SGTF compared to
non-SGTF infected individuals in the same time period, and the lower risk of severity in SGTF
compared to earlier Delta infected individuals, suggests that this reduced severity may be in part a
result of high levels of population immunity (due to natural infection and/or vaccination).
Incomplete vaccination data, and the fact that the majority of re-infections were likely not detected,
resulted in incomplete adjustment for the effect of prior immunity in our analyses."

This is the telling passage and what I've been saying to folks who are focused on supposedly reduced virulence.

Interesting analysis here from a large dataset from a private insurer... not peer reviewed: "Severity: The risk of hospital admission among adults diagnosed with COVID-19 is 29% lower for the Omicron variant infection compared to infections involving the D614G mutation in South Africa’s first wave in mid-2020, after adjusting for vaccination status" https://www.discovery.co.za/corpora...of-omicron-outbreak-based-dot-dot-dot-3150697



> “Epidemiological tracking shows a steep trajectory of new infections, indicating Omicron’s rapid spread, but so far with a flatter trajectory of hospital admissions, possibly indicating lower severity,” explains Dr Noach. “This lesser severity could, however, be confounded by the high seroprevalence levels of SARS CoV-2 antibodies in the general South African population, especially following an extensive Delta wave of infections.”
> 
> Collie adds, “Adults are experiencing a 29% lower admission risk relative to South Africa’s first wave of infection, dominated by D614G, in early 2020. Furthermore, hospitalised adults currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high-care and intensive-care units, relative to prior waves.”



So we get nervous about CIs you can drive a bus through... or unstated CIs... or findings for which the cause is heavily questioned by by the investigators...

Reinfection rates are up with Omicron due to escape, perhaps 5.5X more likely based on the Imperial College study for those previously infected while breakthrough is similarly also much likely for those vaccinated 6+ months ago.

So if we are seeing reduced severe disease rates, it is likely because of incomplete escape preserving immunity against severe illness in those who have previous immunity. 

The study doesn't address parse out reinfection in their data.

To me it is extraordinarily confusing for most people to simply say "Omicron is less severe" when what we mean to say is "Omicron is very probably less severe if you get reinfected/breakthrough, but if you are immuno-naïve, this variant may be just as virulent."

Perhaps Omicron is all around less virulent... that would be good news... but the data are not at all clear on the matter.

As always, the  immuno-naïve are the minority driving the majority of hospitalizations and death and luckily that population is shrinking... with Omicron it will shrink rapidly and then hopefully we'll be/stay in endemic territory. Vaccine is, as always, the fastest and safest way to the immune protections needed for the pandemic->endemic transition.


----------



## EpiEMS (Dec 22, 2021)

Summit said:


> This is the telling passage and what I've been saying to folks who are focused on supposedly reduced virulence.
> 
> Interesting analysis here from a large dataset from a private insurer... not peer reviewed: "Severity: The risk of hospital admission among adults diagnosed with COVID-19 is 29% lower for the Omicron variant infection compared to infections involving the D614G mutation in South Africa’s first wave in mid-2020, after adjusting for vaccination status" https://www.discovery.co.za/corpora...of-omicron-outbreak-based-dot-dot-dot-3150697
> 
> ...



Fully agreed with all the above - it is early days to make any statements with certainty. The most we can say at this point is that Omicron *may* be less likely to cause severe illness but it is early days to be emphatic. And vaccination is still the smart choice.


----------



## akflightmedic (Dec 23, 2021)

Today I saw the most COVID dx in a single shift than any shift prior. New DX has been steady increasing the past week or two after a long lull, but today was full force!


----------



## DrParasite (Dec 23, 2021)

akflightmedic said:


> Today I saw the most COVID dx in a single shift than any shift prior. New DX has been steady increasing the past week or two after a long lull, but today was full force!


Were hospital admissions due to covid?  how many COVID related deaths are occurring?  how many were vaccinated previously?  

I'll be honest, I don't really care about increasing COVID dx, because everyone is going to get it.  I think it's time that we accept this as reality, especially with the multiple reports of vaccinated and boosted people getting dx with it.  the only numbers I care to see are how many hospitalizations are directly related to COVID, and how many deaths.


Summit said:


> Vaccine is, as always, the fastest and safest way to the immune protections needed for the pandemic->endemic transition.


Completely agree (and going for my booster this afternoon).  I'm 100% pro-vaccine, think people should get vaccinated (especially if they are in a high risk group), and I have no issue telling my vaccine hesitant public safety friends that they are stupid for not getting the vaccine.  and I'm 100% against vaccine mandates, for the reasons listed previously, but 100% support the vaccines.


----------

