COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

[MonkeyArrow]

but there is a good reason to discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated?

Two, in my opinion. 1. Unvaccinated patients expose me to an infectious disease far more than would be otherwise required, both in terms of absolute cases and average associated viral load. 2. In a setting where suboptimal care is being delivered due to a lack of staff/resources/beds/whatever, I would like to prioritize those who actually want my help. If you didn't want my (more broadly medicine/science's help) with prophylaxis, why do you want it when you're actually sick? I see a perverse irony in refusing the vaccine on whatever grounds because of unknown composition/long term effects/whatever then coming to the hospital begging for monoclonal antibodies/remdesivir/etc. with arguably less data and a murkier safety profile than vaccines.

1) our job is risky. medical providers have caught diseases from patients (this example comes out of NYC). medical providers have been killed at MVAs. as well as been shot, on medical calls.
2) No, for several reasons. The first reason is the vaccinated can still catch and spread covid. that's not my opinion, that's a documented fact. Secondly, do you remember back in EMT class where we were taught to treat everyone as infectious? which was why we wear gloves for every patient? So if someone has HIV/AIDS, that isn't a reason not to treat them, because you should treat everyone as infectious, and protect yourself appropriately? Furthermore, if you want to protect yourself from those who "actively choose to make your life miserable," I'm not stopping you. Wear an n95 your entire shift, as well as safety glasses. wash your hands, and wear gloves. Take the precaution you deem appropriate. However, their personal decisions doesn't mean you can use it as an excuse not to do your job, regardless of what your thoughts are about said decisions.

1. Indeed. So shouldn't we take any necessary precaution to reduce risk? Like hi-vis vests at MVAs or some agencies push ballistic vests.
2. Yes, the vaccinated can still catch and spread covid. However, the vaccinated spread it a much lower rate than the unvaccinated. This is quite clear in Delta and preceding strains; omicron has somewhat negated this benefit, but preliminary data still suggests some benefit in vaccination to reducing transmissibility. You again go back to "use it as an excuse not to do your job". I have made it clear, and will again, that I am not raising these points in the context of my job. Obviously, my job requires me to treat everyone. However, I can do my job professionally while holding different personal ideological views. My question to you is: Is it morally/ideologically wrong to deny treatment on the basis of vaccination status? Not legally, or practically, or because you're bound by the condition of being employed, but ideologically.

That was your line in the sand. I provided examples. the "real subject" was you choose not to treat those who were unvaccinated. Now, if you want to clarify that you won't treat covid+ patients who are unvaxxed, that might make it a strawman, but that wasn't what you said, and the EM treats all type of issues (and with the omicron variant being prevalent, it's likely your GSW vic will test covid+).

I think the intent of my message was clear, but if you want to be pedantic, sure, you're right. The guy with a GSW who happens to test positive for Covid on admission is not who I'm talking about, because Covid did not bring this patient to the hospital.

Great post/reply, especially your point about whether or not the vaccine is truly a vaccine if multiple boosters are required.

You're describing the flu vaccine. You get a "booster" every year.

 

[DrParasite]

If you didn't want my (more broadly medicine/science's help) with prophylaxis, why do you want it when you're actually sick? I see a perverse irony in refusing the vaccine on whatever grounds because of unknown composition/long term effects/whatever then coming to the hospital begging for monoclonal antibodies/remdesivir/etc. with arguably less data and a murkier safety profile than vaccines.

because they don't want a treatment when they aren't sick? and when they are sick, they want treatment? Not saying agree with their logic, but I see why they want a treatment when they get sick

On the topic of questionable treatments, isn't the Federal Gov't hoarding monoclonal antibodies, and rationing them out to the states, because of the positive outcome when administering to sick covid patients? But I completely agree with the perverse irony (and I have had similar discussions with my coworkers using this line of thinking)

1. Indeed. So shouldn't we take any necessary precaution to reduce risk? Like hi-vis vests at MVAs or some agencies push ballistic vests.

yes.... WE should... if someone is shot, should the provider put a ballistic vest on the patient before they treat them? no, but WE should put on our PPE. Ditto the hiviz vest... should the provider wear one? sure.... but we don't put one on every patient, right? So yes, we are in agreement that WE should take precautions to protect ourselves (such as wearing an n95/gloves/gown/etc), but that's a much different argument than denying treatment to a sick patient because they didn't take proactive precautions.

You again go back to "use it as an excuse not to do your job". I have made it clear, and will again, that I am not raising these points in the context of my job. Obviously, my job requires me to treat everyone. However, I can do my job professionally while holding different personal ideological views. My question to you is: Is it morally/ideologically wrong to deny treatment on the basis of vaccination status? Not legally, or practically, or because you're bound by the condition of being employed, but ideologically.

Well, when you break it down like that... the answer is yes, that is morally/ideologically wrong.

 

[E tank]

You're describing the flu vaccine. You get a "booster" every year.

Are you saying that the flu shot we get each year is the same composition of vaccine we got the year prior?

 

[MackTheKnife]

Two, in my opinion. 1. Unvaccinated patients expose me to an infectious disease far more than would be otherwise required, both in terms of absolute cases and average associated viral load. 2. In a setting where suboptimal care is being delivered due to a lack of staff/resources/beds/whatever, I would like to prioritize those who actually want my help. If you didn't want my (more broadly medicine/science's help) with prophylaxis, why do you want it when you're actually sick? I see a perverse irony in refusing the vaccine on whatever grounds because of unknown composition/long term effects/whatever then coming to the hospital begging for monoclonal antibodies/remdesivir/etc. with arguably less data and a murkier safety profile than vaccines.

1. Indeed. So shouldn't we take any necessary precaution to reduce risk? Like hi-vis vests at MVAs or some agencies push ballistic vests.
2. Yes, the vaccinated can still catch and spread covid. However, the vaccinated spread it a much lower rate than the unvaccinated. This is quite clear in Delta and preceding strains; omicron has somewhat negated this benefit, but preliminary data still suggests some benefit in vaccination to reducing transmissibility. You again go back to "use it as an excuse not to do your job". I have made it clear, and will again, that I am not raising these points in the context of my job. Obviously, my job requires me to treat everyone. However, I can do my job professionally while holding different personal ideological views. My question to you is: Is it morally/ideologically wrong to deny treatment on the basis of vaccination status? Not legally, or practically, or because you're bound by the condition of being employed, but ideologically.

I think the intent of my message was clear, but if you want to be pedantic, sure, you're right. The guy with a GSW who happens to test positive for Covid on admission is not who I'm talking about, because Covid did not bring this patient to the hospital.

You're describing the flu vaccine. You get a "booster" every year.

Wrong. Getting a booster after two doses and now it's heading in the direction of needing another, and possibly one after that ain't the same. Flu is once a year.

 

[Kevinf]

It's also possible for the flu shot to be largely ineffective if the wrong strain is selected when they're prepping for flu season. Mutagenic diseases aren't easy to stay ahead of. A double whammy of flu and covid patients is a nightmare scenario for hospitals this year.

Remember that not long ago we weren't sure it was going to be possible to have a vaccine for Covid AT ALL. Now we're complaining that its effective duration isn't as long as we'd like? We are lucky to have a vaccine period! Get another booster if that's what's required and thank your lucky stars that it's even possible.

 

[MackTheKnife]

Get another booster if that is required? Are you serious? The flu vaccine is admittedly a BEST GUESS every year ( 2 A's and 2 B'S in the quadrivalent). However, no one is saying "we'll require boosters throughout the year" as is the case apparently with COVID. Get vaccinated and no need for a mask. Get vaccinated and you're protected/immune/blah, blah, blah. I raise the BS flag on this.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Get another booster if that is required? Are you serious? The flu vaccine is admittedly a BEST GUESS every year ( 2 A's and 2 B'S in the quadrivalent). However, no one is saying "we'll require boosters throughout the year" as is the case apparently with COVID. Get vaccinated and no need for a mask. Get vaccinated and you're protected/immune/blah, blah, blah. I raise the BS flag on this.

"Get vaccinated for the fourth time in a year even though you'll still need to wear a mask and get tested whenever you aren't feeling well, because even being 'fully' vaccinated you'll still be able to contract and spread the virus".

And we keep wondering where the confusion and skepticism comes from, lol.

 

[ffemt8978]

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two of the vaccine mandate cases today; the OSHA vaccinate or test mandate for companies with 100 or more employees and the HHS mandate pertaining to healthcare workers.

Supreme Court skeptical of Biden's workplace vaccine rule

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears skeptical of the Biden administration’s authority to impose a vaccine-or-testing requirement on the nation’s large employers.

apnews.com

Biden vaccine policies face Supreme Court test amid nationwide COVID-19 surge - SCOTUSblog

With over 100,000 Americans hospitalized for COVID-19 as a result of the highly contagious Omicron variant, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument Friday in two sets of challenges to the Biden administration’s authority to take action to combat the pandemic. In the first case, National Federation

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Tigger]

Mostly I guess I am shocked at the lack of grace many people have through this. This is a completely unprecedented event and complications should be expected. It’s messy. Not sure what everyone expected, I’m frankly surprised that a vaccine effective enough to keep me out of the hospital even exists?

 

[ffemt8978]

Mostly I guess I am shocked at the lack of grace many people have through this. This is a completely unprecedented event and complications should be expected. It’s messy. Not sure what everyone expected, I’m frankly surprised that a vaccine effective enough to keep me out of the hospital even exists?

The vaccine *may* keep you out of the hospital, or it may not. That is one of the issues those against the vaccine have.

Everything is unprecedented until it is not. This is not the first global pandemic we've faced, but it is the first one in a truly global world. The speed and severity of this disease have warranted some truly extreme responses.

Often times, actions taken in the immediate aftermath of an event have far reaching and unintended consequences. While those actions appeared to be fully justified and appropriate at the time, when we look back on them our viewpoint often changes.

Just to be clear, I am not against this vaccine or any vaccine in general. I think everyone who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated.

 

[E tank]

Mostly I guess I am shocked at the lack of grace many people have through this. This is a completely unprecedented event and complications should be expected. It’s messy. Not sure what everyone expected, I’m frankly surprised that a vaccine effective enough to keep me out of the hospital even exists?

I wish I was shocked at the lack of grace. It didn't take this pandemic to manifest it either. This bitter ideological divide began in earnest a couple of decades ago and has just worsened. Situations like the one in which we find ourselves just makes it harder for the camps to conceal themselves and the rest of the world gets caught up in it. Grace? If only....

 

[mgr22]

I wish I was shocked at the lack of grace. It didn't take this pandemic to manifest it either. This bitter ideological divide began in earnest a couple of decades ago and has just worsened. Situations like the one in which we find ourselves just makes it harder for the camps to conceal themselves and the rest of the world gets caught up in it. Grace? If only....

Not sure how it'll end, but a good start would be for people on both sides to accept non-zero probabilities of being wrong.

 

[E tank]

Not sure how it'll end, but a good start would be for people on both sides to accept non-zero probabilities of being wrong.

Ha...when you figure out that little problem, let us know....It's been a problem since before we figured out how to make a camp fire.

 

[Carlos Danger]

I think folks are a lot less polarized in reality than they appear on the surface. Media outlets intentionally focus on problems rather than the many major advancements that have occurred over the decades; this is done for both political reasons and as an attempt to remain relevant. Social media algorithms do the same thing and make people feel safe being an ******* to others in ways that most would never do in person. Then, politicians leverage it all to intentionally stoke fear and division and then tell us that they'll fix everything if they are elected.

If all social media and most news media was shut down for 6 months, the country would seem a lot more civilized to most of us.

 

[EpiEMS]

I think folks are a lot less polarized in reality than they appear on the surface. Media outlets intentionally focus on problems rather than the many major advancements that have occurred over the decades; this is done for both political reasons and as an attempt to remain relevant. Social media algorithms do the same thing and make people feel safe being an ******* to others in ways that most would never do in person. Then, politicians leverage it all to intentionally stoke fear and division and then tell us that they'll fix everything if they are elected.

If all social media and most news media was shut down for 6 months, the country would seem a lot more civilized to most of us.

Agreed. People are more alike than not and if everybody would just be able to sit down and talk with folks across the aisle like they used to, it would be a better place.

 

[ffemt8978]

Supreme Court halts COVID-19 vaccine rule for US businesses

The Supreme Court has stopped a major push by the Biden administration to boost the nation’s COVID-19 vaccination rate, a requirement that employees at large businesses get a vaccine or test regularly and wear a mask on the job.

apnews.com

Supreme Court shoots down OSHA vaccine mandate for employers with over 100 employees while allowing the healthcare worker vaccine mandate to remain.

Got to admit, this was kind of what I was expecting to see happen, since the OSHA employer mandate jumped so far past their established regulatory limits.

 

[RocketMedic]

that SEAL case ain’t gonna stand for long. And this whole kerfluffle makes me shudder for what happens when a disease with double-digit mortality rates rears its head.

 

[ffemt8978]

that SEAL case ain’t gonna stand for long. And this whole kerfluffle makes me shudder for what happens when a disease with double-digit mortality rates rears its head.

Of all the groups that have a legitimate argument against a vaccine mandate, the military is by far and away the least persuasive. The military has every right to mandate it's members get vaccinated against a whole host of diseases and this is no different.

 

[EpiEMS]

Of all the groups that have a legitimate argument against a vaccine mandate, the military is by far and away the least persuasive. The military has every right to mandate it's members get vaccinated against a whole host of diseases and this is no different.

Not to mention longstanding precedent for it going back to the Revolution!

 

[ffemt8978]

Pregnant people are still not getting vaccinated against COVID

Misinformation and muddled public health messaging have failed expectant parents.

arstechnica.com

Interesting read on covid vaccinations vs pregnancy.