Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Deertick

So, yes, I am saying that the powers that be knew what the truth was and thought that Americans were too fragile to hear it. Apparently they were spot on with that assessment.

Its come full circle. Welcome to "conspiracy theories 101"

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Can you provide examples of the "collective welfare" that you see working all over the place?

Sure, the first thing that came to mind was the interstate highway system. The govt could lower everyone's taxes if no further money was to be spent maintaining it. Most people would agree though that that's money well spent. People who don't drive don't get a tax break for that, even though maintainng the system doesn't directly benefit them.

Another example is the MLB antitrust exemption. The collective in this case is the owners, who benefit financially from being able to suppress player wages and control their careers in ways other big businesses can't. It's working quite well for them (not so well for minor leaguers).

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Its come full circle. Welcome to "conspiracy theories 101"

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Sure, the first thing that came to mind was the interstate highway system. The govt could lower everyone's taxes if no further money was to be spent maintaining it. Most people would agree though that that's money well spent. People who don't drive don't get a tax break for that, even though maintainng the system doesn't directly benefit them.

Another example is the MLB antitrust exemption. The collective in this case is the owners, who benefit financially from being able to suppress player wages and control their careers in ways other big businesses can't. It's working quite well for them (not so well for minor leaguers).

1. Some would consider this theft.

2. Similar to Pfizer/government benefitting, while the average American doesn't?

Not sure how these are collective welfare measures...

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1. Some would consider this theft.

2. Similar to Pfizer/government benefitting, while the average American doesn't?

Not sure how these are collective welfare measures...

1. I won't argue with that.
2. I think "the average American" has benefitted from vaccines

My two examples are literally measures to provide collective welfare. Not sure how to try and debate that.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

1. I won't argue with that.
2. I think "the average American" has benefitted from vaccines

My two examples are literally measures to provide collective welfare. Not sure how to try and debate that.

"Think". That's not definitive to coerce society to get jabbed.

Both examples identify a group of people who don't benefit from the "collective welfare", which proves my point.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

"Think". That's not definitive to coerce society to get jabbed.

Both examples identify a group of people who don't benefit from the "collective welfare", which proves my point.

I conceded your point in that regard from the beginning...my point is that one can believe in the concept and support measures intended to provide it while accepting that they won't equally benefit all.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I conceded your point in that regard from the beginning...my point is that one can believe in the concept and support measures intended to provide it while accepting that they won't equally benefit all.

So you're ok with forcing your beliefs on others, especially if it won't equally benefit all?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So you're ok with forcing your beliefs on others, especially if it won't equally benefit all?

No. Why do you think I would be?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

No. Why do you think I would be?

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I conceded your point in that regard from the beginning...my point is that one can believe in the concept and support measures intended to provide it while accepting that they won't equally benefit all.

This.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This.

I don't see the connection.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I don't see the connection.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Yeah, that doesn't help. If you decide you'd like to resume having a conversation, let me know.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Yeah, that doesn't help. If you decide you'd like to resume having a conversation, let me know.

What did you mean by...

"My point is that one can believe in the concept and support measures intended to provide it while accepting that they won't equally benefit all." ?


I don't know how else this could be interpreted aside from enforcing one's beliefs.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What did you mean by...

"My point is that one can believe in the concept and support measures intended to provide it while accepting that they won't equally benefit all." ?


I don't know how else this could be interpreted aside from enforcing one's beliefs.

To go back to my highways example, I support having a well maintained insterstate highway system. I'm fine with my tax dollars going toward that, even in the event that I stop driving at some point. It sounds like you do not support this, because people who don't drive can't benefit from it in the same way, or to the same degree?

I do not see how this has anything to do with forcing ones beliefs on others.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

To go back to my highways example, I support having a well maintained insterstate highway system. I'm fine with my tax dollars going toward that, even in the event that I stop driving at some point. It sounds like you do not support this, because people who don't drive can't benefit from it in the same way, or to the same degree?

I do not see how this has anything to do with forcing ones beliefs on others.

In your interstate example, are you not stealing money from someone else to fund your belief?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

In your interstate example, are you not stealing money from someone else to fund your belief?

Well, I'm not stealing anything, but if you mean the government, how it's supposed to work (as I'm sure you know) is that people elect leadership that will try and enact the things that most people want. I suppose you could construe almost anything as "stealing" if you believe that the only things worth having our government do are those guaranteed to benefit every person in exactly the same way. If that reflects your position, I'm curious to know if you think there is anything to which that applies, or if you think there even should be a federal government.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Well, I'm not stealing anything, but if you mean the government, how it's supposed to work (as I'm sure you know) is that people elect leadership that will try and enact the things that most people want. I suppose you could construe almost anything as "stealing" if you believe that the only things worth having our government do are those guaranteed to benefit every person in exactly the same way. If that reflects your position, I'm curious to know if you think there is anything to which that applies, or if you think there even should be a federal government.

A thoughtful response to this would be good.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Well, I'm not stealing anything, but if you mean the government, how it's supposed to work (as I'm sure you know) is that people elect leadership that will try and enact the things that most people want. I suppose you could construe almost anything as "stealing" if you believe that the only things worth having our government do are those guaranteed to benefit every person in exactly the same way. If that reflects your position, I'm curious to know if you think there is anything to which that applies, or if you think there even should be a federal government.

I'm not going to debate our tax system or my thoughts on government.

I'll ask this in a different way. Are you in support of penalizing companies for employing unvaxxed?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm not going to debate our tax system or my thoughts on government.

Are you in support of penalizing companies for employing unvaxxed?

It seems to me that your views on government have a lot to do with your arguments on this thread. But that's fine.

I'd be able to answer your question with regard to specific instances, I think. Given the patchwork of laws, regulations and guidelines, I don't think I can answer that in the abstract.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

It seems to me that your views on government have a lot to do with your arguments on this thread. But that's fine.

I'd be able to answer your question with regard to specific instances, I think. Given the patchwork of laws, regulations and guidelines, I don't think I can answer that in the abstract.

You said government is a representation of a group of beliefs. You also are questioning how I came to the conclusion that you are ok enforcing your beliefs on others.

It's a very simple question because it happened. Are you are ok with the government penalizing companies for having unvaxxed employees?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

You said government is a representation of a group of beliefs. You also are questioning how I came to the conclusion that you are ok enforcing your beliefs on others.

It's a very simple question because it happened. Are you are ok with the government penalizing companies for having unvaxxed employees?

I dont think I said anything about beliefs. That is your word. Edit: I used the word in hypothesizing about yours, as you have used it so much.

Give me a specific instance. As I said, I'm not interested in trying to paint a complex issue in black and white.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe we should take William F. Buckley's advice and be governed by the first 1000 people in the phone book.

That'd be cool!
Pres AAAAAAAAAAdrian
Rep. AAAAAAAAAABruce
Sen. AAAAAAAAAAJim (I-FL)
AG AAAAAAAAAAAPeter

The only problem would be re-election time you might have to beat AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAd olph.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I dont think I said anything about beliefs. That is your word. Edit: I used the word in hypothesizing about yours, as you have used it so much.

Give me a specific instance. As I said, I'm not interested in trying to paint a complex issue in black and white.

It was a very black and white issue.

Companies with more than 100 employees would be penalized for having unvaxxed employees.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

It was a very black and white issue.

Companies with more than 100 employees would be penalized for having unvaxxed employees.

I remember hearing about this, but I don't recall whether it actually happened. Were there penalties given out?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

It was a very black and white issue.

Companies with more than 100 employees would be penalized for having unvaxxed employees.

You mean the thing that the federal government struck down as unconstitutional? Not sure why you would take issue with something that doesn’t exist.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I remember hearing about this, but I don't recall whether it actually happened. Were there penalties given out?

Originally Posted by Carter08

You mean the thing that the federal government struck down as unconstitutional? Not sure why you would take issue with something that doesn’t exist.

I don't know if penalties were actually handed down or not before it was struck down. The fact of the matter is, it cost people their jobs as companies prepped for this because the government did in fact implement this before it was later deemed unconstitutional. At the time, the pro-vaxx/mask crowd supported this "measure, while accepting that they won't equally benefit all," as you put it earlier. People were coerced into getting vaxxed or losing their jobs.

It is a very simple question. Did you support the implementation of this federal mandate?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I don't know if penalties were actually handed down or not before it was struck down. The fact of the matter is, it cost people their jobs as companies prepped for this because the government did in fact implement this before it was later deemed unconstitutional. At the time, the pro-vaxx/mask crowd supported this "measure, while accepting that they won't equally benefit all," as you put it earlier. People were coerced into getting vaxxed or losing their jobs.

It is a very simple question. Did you support the implementation of this federal mandate?

My opinion is no. In the dark points of the pandemic I would have preferred incentives like tax breaks for high vaxx rates as opposed to any penalties for low vaxx rates. Carrots better than sticks. Business as usual if you don’t want to have your employees vaxxed. Better scenario is that people recognized their duty to their fellow man and just got vaxxed rather than risk taking up hospital beds during those dark times. And if you think people getting vaxxed filled up hospital beds I invite you to go to your local hospital and interview a few medical professionals and see if they agree with you. Start with the ICU.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

My opinion is no. In the dark points of the pandemic I would have preferred incentives like tax breaks for high vaxx rates as opposed to any penalties for low vaxx rates. Carrots better than sticks. Business as usual if you don’t want to have your employees vaxxed. Better scenario is that people recognized their duty to their fellow man and just got vaxxed rather than risk taking up hospital beds during those dark times. And if you think people getting vaxxed filled up hospital beds I invite you to go to your local hospital and interview a few medical professionals and see if they agree with you. Start with the ICU.

So close to being able to agree on something, although I'm surprised you didn't support the company penalty.

Medical professionals I know and talked with informed me of the contrary, but hey, you live in your world. I don't want to ruin your reality.

Why any government incentive at all? If the majority truly believe in this pro-COVID/mask ideology, why incentivize? If they knew that ~10% of society wouldn't get the vaxx/mask anyways (as Deertick pounded the drum on), why the need to incentivize? And why is it ok to use tax dollars to incentivize?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So close to being able to agree on something, although I'm surprised you didn't support the company penalty.

Medical professionals I know and talked with informed me of the contrary, but hey, you live in your world. I don't want to ruin your reality.

Why any government incentive at all? If the majority truly believe in this pro-COVID/mask ideology, why incentivize? If they knew that ~10% of society wouldn't get the vaxx/mask anyways (as Deertick pounded the drum on), why the need to incentivize? And why is it ok to use tax dollars to incentivize?

I don’t know that there was a need to incentivize. I think possibly though because there were times when things looked really dire. In my version of reality the vaxx helped get us out of those dark times.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I don't know if penalties were actually handed down or not before it was struck down. The fact of the matter is, it cost people their jobs as companies prepped for this because the government did in fact implement this before it was later deemed unconstitutional. At the time, the pro-vaxx/mask crowd supported this "measure, while accepting that they won't equally benefit all," as you put it earlier. People were coerced into getting vaxxed or losing their jobs.

It is a very simple question. Did you support the implementation of this federal mandate?

Speaking somewhat abstractly still, I was conflicted about the idea when I heard about it. In hindsight we know that the virus has turned out to be far less deadly than was initially feared. As James said, it turned out to be the wrong decision. New viruses pose a challenge to scientists, and I think the idea of such a measure was to try and prevent needless deaths. Same with cdc recommendations as well; they were trying to be very, very cautious.

I'm guessing your view is that the government was not at all concerned about public health and was instead interested solely in lining the pockets of the vaccine manufacturers. That latter view is not unjustified, as our leaders all across party lines put private interests above public ones all the time. The selective outrage--ignoring this problem in other areas while applying it to COVID vaccines--is what baffles me.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I don’t know that there was a need to incentivize. I think possibly though because there were times when things looked really dire. In my version of reality the vaxx helped get us out of those dark times.

A lot of the answers to our questions include the word "think".

You would think if there were honest intentions with all of this, and if the situation was so dire, there would be more clear/definitive answers instead of leaving people to "think".

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

A lot of the answers to our questions include the word "think".

You would think if there were honest intentions with all of this, and if the situation was so dire, there would be more clear/definitive answers instead of leaving people to "think".

I’d have to look at the vaccine rate and the open bed and ventilator rate as it existed back then. There was a lot of disinformation about the vaccine from alt right sources that may have required some incentives.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I’d have to look at the vaccine rate and the open bed and ventilator rate as it existed back then. There was a lot of disinformation about the vaccine from alt right sources that may have required some incentives.

How many of these cards are in your deck or up your sleeve?

Death totals haven't really changed pre-vaxx/post-vaxx (see some of my previous posts). While you're at it, look at obesity and multiple comorbidities. I just want to make sure you get the full picture instead of just what's in your reality.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

How many of these cards are in your deck or up your sleeve?

Death totals haven't really changed pre-vaxx/post-vaxx (see some of my previous posts). While you're at it, look at obesity and multiple comorbidities. I just want to make sure you get the full picture instead of just what's in your reality.

A very very very healthy person can get into a car accident. There was a time when these people with comorbitities and even very healthy people were taking up beds that threatened the former’s access to care. In my version of reality getting more people vaxxed meant less of a chance they would take up valuable hospital real estate. We seem to be far from that now which I think we can all agree is good.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

You mean the thing that the federal government struck down as unconstitutional? Not sure why you would take issue with something that doesn’t exist.

Your current federal govt was the one trying to implement it but your Supreme Court turned it down as being unconstitutional.

[Deertick]

Why any government incentive at all? If the majority truly believe in this pro-COVID/mask ideology, why incentivize? If they knew that ~10% of society wouldn't get the vaxx/mask anyways (as Deertick pounded the drum on), why the need to incentivize? And why is it ok to use tax dollars to incentivize?

Originally Posted by Carter08

I don’t know that there was a need to incentivize. I think possibly though because there were times when things looked really dire. In my version of reality the vaxx helped get us out of those dark times.

To answer what appears to be an honest question, in order to achieve effective 'herd immunity', which limits transmission down to one to one or better, the immune population needed to be at 75-80%. So statistically starting with 10% a no-go was a challenge to begin with. In 2021, we were still in the 60% range and that measly 15-20% is actually exponentially more risk.

Remember that NO ONE in the WORLD had natural immunity to this, so it was like building the pyramids from scratch. The only question was (is) are we going to let the virus run wild or build the fire break.

As far as incentives, why do we incentivize military enlistment? Corporations moving? Construction project completing under goal? Farmers to plant certain crops? Because it works. Penalties rarely do.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by irv

Your current federal govt was the one trying to implement it but your Supreme Court turned it down as being unconstitutional.

Uhmmm....

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

My opinion is no. In the dark points of the pandemic I would have preferred incentives like tax breaks for high vaxx rates as opposed to any penalties for low vaxx rates. Carrots better than sticks. Business as usual if you don’t want to have your employees vaxxed. Better scenario is that people recognized their duty to their fellow man and just got vaxxed rather than risk taking up hospital beds during those dark times. And if you think people getting vaxxed filled up hospital beds I invite you to go to your local hospital and interview a few medical professionals and see if they agree with you. Start with the ICU.

Originally Posted by Carter08

A very very very healthy person can get into a car accident. There was a time when these people with comorbidities and even very healthy people were taking up beds that threatened the former’s access to care. In my version of reality getting more people vaxxed meant less of a chance they would take up valuable hospital real estate. We seem to be far from that now which I think we can all agree is good.

You drank the Kool-Aid good!
It was proven time and time again that was nothing but a big lie they were using to trick more people into getting vaccinated.
Vid, links, etc, in those other 2 threads that you were a part of, and even commented on, proved that, so either you have a very short memory, or you're just trolling again? Do you really think they could afford to fire doctor's and nurses who refused the vaccines if they, the hospitals, were so overwhelmed?
"""1073 cases in the fully vaccinated hospitalized compared to 417 in the unvaccinated""
https://www.durhamradionews.com/archives/149331
https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/st...72856409354250
https://twitter.com/itsonlychoclat/s...g-icu-bed-data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evP8OgHU6hk

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

Your current federal govt was the one trying to implement it but your Supreme Court turned it down as being unconstitutional.

Remind me when the Supreme Court branched off from the federal government. What year was that?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Remind me when the Supreme Court branched off from the federal government. What year was that?

So Biden and the Dems tried to implement it, but then they had a change of heart and then struck it down too?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Remind me when the Supreme Court branched off from the federal government. What year was that?

I think it was the same year Fauci and George Soros met up at Davos to create COVID.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Deertick

To answer what appears to be an honest question, in order to achieve effective 'herd immunity', which limits transmission down to one to one or better, the immune population needed to be at 75-80%. So statistically starting with 10% a no-go was a challenge to begin with. In 2021, we were still in the 60% range and that measly 15-20% is actually exponentially more risk.

Remember that NO ONE in the WORLD had natural immunity to this, so it was like building the pyramids from scratch. The only question was (is) are we going to let the virus run wild or build the fire break.

As far as incentives, why do we incentivize military enlistment? Corporations moving? Construction project completing under goal? Farmers to plant certain crops? Because it works. Penalties rarely do.

Possibly up to.60% were asymptomatic.. covid wasnt created.from nothing

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by Carter08

My opinion is no. In the dark points of the pandemic I would have preferred incentives like tax breaks for high vaxx rates as opposed to any penalties for low vaxx rates. Carrots better than sticks. Business as usual if you don’t want to have your employees vaxxed. Better scenario is that people recognized their duty to their fellow man and just got vaxxed rather than risk taking up hospital beds during those dark times. And if you think people getting vaxxed filled up hospital beds I invite you to go to your local hospital and interview a few medical professionals and see if they agree with you. Start with the ICU.

That part about the unvaxxed taking up hospital beds and interviewing medical professionals...that's just spot on......in fact, say it louder so that those in the back can hear. Lots of disinformation spread about negative effects of the vaccine. Side effects and bad reactions were fairly rare and I had not heard of one negative incident from my peers at our state's medical school. What I heard a lot about was ICUs flooded first with people who did not take precautions or take the virus seriously, and then after vaccines became available, were flooded with people who did not get vaccinated. In addition to interviewing medical professionals, more anti-vaxers might have been convinced to get vaxxed had they watched some interviews of those that refused to get vaxxed and were dying, or that survived after months of agonizing recovery and are still dealing with effects of long covid.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

That part about the unvaxxed taking up hospital beds and interviewing medical professionals...that's just spot on......in fact, say it louder so that those in the back can hear. Lots of disinformation spread about negative effects of the vaccine. Side effects and bad reactions were fairly rare and I had not heard of one negative incident from my peers at our state's medical school. What I heard a lot about was ICUs flooded first with people who did not take precautions or take the virus seriously, and then after vaccines became available, were flooded with people who did not get vaccinated. In addition to interviewing medical professionals, more anti-vaxers might have been convinced to get vaxxed had they watched some interviews of those that refused to get vaxxed and were dying, or that survived after months of agonizing recovery and are still dealing with effects of long covid.

You should direct a movie. Your over-dramatization of the entire situation is riveting.

None of the FACTS back up your stories.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

That part about the unvaxxed taking up hospital beds and interviewing medical professionals...that's just spot on......in fact, say it louder so that those in the back can hear. Lots of disinformation spread about negative effects of the vaccine. Side effects and bad reactions were fairly rare and I had not heard of one negative incident from my peers at our state's medical school. What I heard a lot about was ICUs flooded first with people who did not take precautions or take the virus seriously, and then after vaccines became available, were flooded with people who did not get vaccinated. In addition to interviewing medical professionals, more anti-vaxers might have been convinced to get vaxxed had they watched some interviews of those that refused to get vaxxed and were dying, or that survived after months of agonizing recovery and are still dealing with effects of long covid.

Yeah no side is 100% as with most decisions. It was interesting that a large amount health professionals were not allowed to work in flooded ICUS who themselves tested negative for corona. Was that a good decision to make a large part of the workforce stay home? If have personel to spare and make them stay home, the overflooded argument loses a lot of credence as a 'winning' argument.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

Lots of disinformation spread about negative effects of the vaccine. Side effects and bad reactions were fairly rare and I had not heard of one negative incident from my peers at our state's medical school.

This is actually disinformation. Have there not been cases of myocarditis as a result of getting the vax? What about the blood clot issues? How about pregnancy issues? These are well documented side effects that HAVE occurred.

In fact, my friend's daughter was told NOT to get vaxxed to avoid the chance of myocarditis. My father in law has terminal cancer, was originally told to get vaxxed, and his new doctor has now been told neither the vaxx nor its boosters are safe for him. Oh and by the way, he has had COVID. Beat it - no problem.

Think about that. COVID is less threatening than the side effects of its "vaxx".

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Yeah no side is 100% as with most decisions. It was interesting that a large amount health professionals were not allowed to work in flooded ICUS who themselves tested negative for corona. Was that a good decision to make a large part of the workforce stay home? If have personel to spare and make them stay home, the overflooded argument loses a lot of credence as a 'winning' argument.

I guess your point is that if medical personnel has coronavirus and are asymptomatic, they should be allowed to help patients that already have it?

There have been articles criticizing NY state for letting nurses with coronavirus work, even when they were asymptomatic. https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/ny-sta...-nursing-home/

Its true that some times lack of medical personnel was the limiting factor in treating patients. It also true that not having enough beds and ventilators was a limiting factor at times.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I guess your point is that if medical personnel has coronavirus and are asymptomatic, they should be allowed to help patients that already have it?

There have been articles criticizing NY state for letting nurses with coronavirus work, even when they were asymptomatic. https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/ny-sta...-nursing-home/

Its true that some times lack of medical personnel was the limiting factor in treating patients. It also true that not having enough beds and ventilators was a limiting factor at times.

No i am saying that personel that tested NEGATIVE but did not take the shot were not allowed to work but your point again plays down satff versus beds.....the big thing was not enough staff at least equal to beds....you can create a lot of makeshift beds if have staff...but it wasnt urgent enough of an issue to let all staff in...staff was fired if they did not take the shot or basically forced to leave.......criticizing staff for working if asymptomatic also ia problem to your argument, again if sooo bad, why be against staff from working...even during the height of the 2nd and other later waves..ventilators as not a factor correct me if i am wrong..

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I guess your point is that if medical personnel has coronavirus and are asymptomatic, they should be allowed to help patients that already have it?

There have been articles criticizing NY state for letting nurses with coronavirus work, even when they were asymptomatic. https://nypost.com/2020/04/29/ny-sta...-nursing-home/

Its true that some times lack of medical personnel was the limiting factor in treating patients. It also true that not having enough beds and ventilators was a limiting factor at times.

This contradicts hospital policies/CDC guidance that allowed vaxxed medical personnel to work, regardless of test results, and did not allow unvaxxed medical personnel to work.

https://www.health.ny.gov/press/rele...k_guidance.htm

[cgjackson222]

One thing I've found a bit surprising during this thread is just how unrealistically demanding people are of the medical community.

People are looking at things in hindsight and acting like they were foregone conclusions.

We hadn't had a pandemic in 100 years. The spanish flu killed approximately 1 in 5 that it infected, which amounted to around 675,000 Americans, which was about .65% of the entire population at the time.

For many, the lesson learned was that more could and should have been done to stem the loss of life.

And yet, it seems many on this thread think we should have done next to nothing and let the chips fall as they may. Their reasoning seems to be that only a fraction of the nation's population has died from covid. Of course, at the beginning of the pandemic, there was no way to know how deadly the virus would be.

So the reaction, which to some was an overreaction, was really just a cautious approach. Remember, we didn't have a shot that could reduce the severity of the illness for many months. Remember, we had hospitals overflowing. Remember, we didn't (and still don't) know the side effects for those that survived Covid.

It is absolutely ridiculous to expect anyone (Fauci/the CDC) to know exactly what to do without changing guidance as the reality of the pandemic evolved. And evolved it has. We now have relatively few hospitalizations/deaths relative to the beginning of the pandemic (which has a lot to do with the shot). Yet people are complaining that the CDC has changed guidance? Doesn't make any sense.

The overall disrespect of the medical community on this thread has been strange. There may come a day when you need to rely on the medical community, and they will likely treat you without a second thought, even though you have disparaged them.