Hospital suspends over 100 employees for not getting COVID vaccine

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
Denver mayor just mandated all LEO, FF, and hospital workers get vaccinated.
 

DrParasite

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,850
1,824
113
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

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,363
1,156
113
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

Forum Lieutenant
199
40
28
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).
 
OP
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,592
1,212
113
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).
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

Forum Probie
28
6
3
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

Forum Captain
389
161
43
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.

...current rate of Natural Immunity...

immunity.png
 
Last edited:

DrParasite

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,850
1,824
113
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

Forum Deputy Chief
3,726
1,093
113
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

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,850
1,824
113
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?
(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?
#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).
 
OP
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,592
1,212
113
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?

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?

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).
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

Forum Deputy Chief
3,726
1,093
113
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?

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?

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).

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

Forum Deputy Chief
3,746
2,382
113
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.
 
OP
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,592
1,212
113
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

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
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

Forum Deputy Chief
3,726
1,093
113
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

Critical Crazy
2,596
1,197
113
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.
 
Last edited:

EpiEMS

Forum Deputy Chief
3,726
1,093
113
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



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.

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

Forum Deputy Chief
3,746
2,382
113
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

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,850
1,824
113
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.
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.
 
Top