Coronavirus Thread v.2

[Skeever]

Governor Murphy Signs Executive Order Strengthening COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements for Workers in Health Care and Congregate Settings and Requiring COVID-19 Booster Doses
https://www.nj.gov/health/news/2022/approved/20220119a.shtml

This is great news. A close family member of mine works with the disabled, and many staffers have refused the vaccine. I can't believe how selfish that is, to be working with people who are severely disabled and vulnerable to the pandemic and refusing to help protect them.

Many of the unvaccinated staff are quitting, which is a blessing in disguise, as this person has told me that working around the unvaccinated staff has been so challenging based on how unreliable they've been that they were hoping they would quit anyway.

How is less people working in healthcare going to help with the stress that the system is already experiencing?

Because the unvaccinated staff are something like 10x more likely to get sick and quarantined than the vaccinated ones. Better to let the unvaccinated walk so you can staff around the vaccinated who are much more resilient and reliable against the virus, even if there are breakthrough cases. I've heard health care CEOs and hospital directors saying things to the same effect, but now I've seen it play out in my own situation: the unvaccinated quitting due to a mandate is a blessing in disguise for the staffing problems experienced in these settings. For this person I know in particular, every shutdown their center has experience was due to the staff who refused to vaccinate, which has already cost the business something like 6 figures this month.

[ReaPsTA]

Governor Murphy Signs Executive Order Strengthening COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements for Workers in Health Care and Congregate Settings and Requiring COVID-19 Booster Doses
https://www.nj.gov/health/news/2022/approved/20220119a.shtml

This is great news. A close family member of mine works with the disabled, and many staffers have refused the vaccine. I can't believe how selfish that is, to be working with people who are severely disabled and vulnerable to the pandemic and refusing to help protect them.

Many of the unvaccinated staff are quitting, which is a blessing in disguise, as this person has told me that working around the unvaccinated staff has been so challenging based on how unreliable they've been that they were hoping they would quit anyway.

How is less people working in healthcare going to help with the stress that the system is already experiencing?

Because the unvaccinated staff are something like 10x more likely to get sick and quarantined than the vaccinated ones. Better to let the unvaccinated walk so you can staff around the vaccinated who are much more resilient and reliable against the virus, even if there are breakthrough cases. I've heard health care CEOs and hospital directors saying things to the same effect, but now I've seen it play out in my own situation: the unvaccinated quitting due to a mandate is a blessing in disguise for the staffing problems experienced in these settings. For this person I know in particular, every shutdown their center has experience was due to the staff who refused to vaccinate, which has already cost the business something like 6 figures this month.

- Where does the 10x number come from? Is this something your friend is saying? Have you seen this in the news or something somewhere? I have attempted to Google this and cannot find a good number on it

- The crux of what you're saying feels like - because health care centers have to shut down more due to unvaccinated workers and lose more money, that unvaccinated workers are a liability. I can understand hospitals diverting resources due to COVID patients, but sick staff? What is happening here?

[Grappler]

My son tested negative for covid via PCR test and has just a normal cold.  So we had covid in the house last week, affecting my daughter, wife and I.  And because the 3 of us are vaccinated, we truly protected our youngest from contracting covid.      That is exactly how this vaccine is supposed to work.

I had my annual physical this morning and talked about covid a lot with my doctor.  When I explained our family's experience last week, he told me that we did everything right with regard to my son.  By the 3 of us being vaccinated, our viral loads were low enough that we did not have enough of the virus in us to pass onto my son.  If we did, it would be very mild.  I also asked him to run the covid blood test, and he will, but also explained that the covid antibodies in my blood would be high enough because of the vaccine.  So the blood test won't really tell me if I had covid, and he did offer me a PCR test.  I declined, saying that I'm confident that the vaccine did it's job well and despite my curiosity, I don't need to waste the test.  I was merely curious about potential natural immunity, but I'm happy enough knowing that the vaccine and booster shot did what it was supposed to do.

[hefdaddy42]

As I understand it, a lot of the work on these vaccines was done before the pandemic even hit, because of the similarity to previous viruses and the work done on those vaccines.

Also, there simply are no long-term side effects to vaccines, as a rule.  Going back at least as far as the polio vaccine (1960s), any side effects make themselves known within six to eight weeks. 

Also, the study of mRNA vaccines has been going on for decades.  These vaccines are not mysteries, they are very well known and well researched.


No long-term side effects.  That's not a thing.  It's a straw man scare tactic propagated by people who are already against the vaccine.

- Research on this technology has existed for decades, but the technology to make it actually work has only gotten to a state where it's practical over the last ~10 years. This article shows the progression of the delivery methods and approvals for them having changed and updated even up to 2019 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00358-0 . This article (made in 2019) also notes a couple times that extensive human trials had not been performed - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00594/full

- Saying there are no long-term effects of vaccines, in a historical sense, has no bearing here. Focusing on the mRNA vaccines specifically, while the technology has existed for decades, the COVID shots are the first mass released mRNA product. They are a new technology, not a crippled version of a virus or some other stand-in organism

- As the technology is new, based on recent developments, and has not had extensive long-term testing, they cannot be characterized as well-known and well-researched

- Think of how often unknown side-effects and causes are found. Asbestos, BPAs, Monsanto products causing cancer. Look at the FDA going back and re-evaluating if chemical sunscreen products, which definitely shouldn't be causing cancer, might in fact be causing cancer. The new major Java code bug has lurked for almost 10 years without being discovered. Whenever some horrible long-term or hidden effect in something is found, the story is necessarily that "well we tested it thoroughly and thought it was safe!"

- It is literally impossible to know if long term side-effects are "not a thing" because it is impossible for the long-term side-effects to have been tested and measured

- Do I think there are long-term side-effects? Not exactly. If you get a long-term side effect like bells palsy, that should show up quickly. My understanding is that the various components of the shot flush out of your body in about a week. It does not make sense that something that leaves your body in a week can lurk and mysteriously come up later

- But again, when these unexpected problems come up, they are... unexpected. I know not why caution/concern about this should be characterized as a fake argument produced by motivated reasoning

The general consensus among the worldwide medical community, who knows more than you or I do, is that the vaccines are safe.

Experts are experts for good reason.  Especially when there is a general worldwide consensus among those experts.

When I think about topics that I have relative expertise in, there is no "expert consensus" of the type that is portrayed to exist around certain scientific topics. Even very fundamental foundations of certain fields are often still hotly debated.

If such an unquestionable scientific consensus actually existed on any topic, to me that would be a sign of groupthink, not that the consensus is accurate. The whole point of science is that it should be questioned.

That's some real nice rationalization you've got going there.

Groupthink?  Come on.  How convenient.

[Ben_Jamin]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink

Groups that prioritize their group identity and behave coldly toward "outsiders" may be more likely to fall victim to groupthink. Organizations in which dissent is discouraged or openly punished are similarly likely to engage in groupthink when making decisions. High stress is another root cause, as is time pressure that demands a fast decision.

To recognize groupthink, it's useful to identify the situations in which it's most likely to occur. When groups feel threatened—either physically or through threats to their identity—they may develop a strong "us versus them" mentality. This can prompt members to accept group perspectives, even when those perspectives don't necessarily align with their personal views. Groupthink may also occur in situations in which decision-making is rushed—in some cases, with destructive outcomes.

To minimize the risk, it's critical to allow enough time for issues to be fully discussed, and for as many group members as possible to share their thoughts. When dissent is encouraged, groupthink is less likely to occur. Learning about common cognitive biases, as well as how to identify them, may also reduce the likelihood of groupthink.

Individual members of the group self-censoring—especially if they fear being shunned or derided for speaking their mind—is one potential sign that the group may engage in groupthink. If those who do dissent are pressured to recant or conform to the majority view, it may similarly signal groupthink. Groups that actively deride "outsiders" may be more likely to fall prey.

Healthy dissent has been linked to more creative thinking and ultimately greater innovation within organizations. Asking one person to deliberately play devil's advocate and argue with the solutions proposed by the majority is one strategy that has been shown to be effective against groupthink.

Organizations that want to support critical thinking, creativity, and innovation should first foster a culture where dissent is allowed and encouraged. They should reward risk-taking, be open to ideas from all group members—regardless of their experience or position—and create regular opportunities for individuals to share their ideas, big and small.

[ReaPsTA]

That's some real nice rationalization you've got going there.

Groupthink?  Come on.  How convenient.

Group think has existed forever. Look at medicine. The evidence that washing your hands reduced the possibility of spreading disease existed before it was widely accepted because the groupthink was opposed to it. The people who discovered that ulcers can be caused by bacteria had to fight a years long campaign to get their findings accepted. Not because their evidence was bad, but because the groupthink was on the side of ulcers being a stress reaction. Or science. Look at how everyone poured tons of time and effort into String Theory even though it was obviously thin. Or politics. After 9/11 everyone fell into a pro-war fever dream.

I cannot possibly imagine you don't know this. I cannot possibly imagine that you haven't seen group think in your own life.

[Dublagent66]

Group think reminds me of executive decisions made in a vacuum without any outside involvement or individual expert opinion.  I've seen it over and over in big corporations for decades.

[Skeever]

- Where does the 10x number come from? Is this something your friend is saying? Have you seen this in the news or something somewhere? I have attempted to Google this and cannot find a good number on it

- The crux of what you're saying feels like - because health care centers have to shut down more due to unvaccinated workers and lose more money, that unvaccinated workers are a liability. I can understand hospitals diverting resources due to COVID patients, but sick staff? What is happening here?

- The 10x is vague and refers to the greater likelihood of transmission and hospitalization among the unvaccinated. This varies by group but I've seen something like 5x for younger people and well over 10x when we're talking about the most at-risk groups.

- When your job is caring for the most immunocompromised people out there you should not be allowed to work sick, I think this is reasonable.

That's some real nice rationalization you've got going there.

Groupthink?  Come on.  How convenient.

Group think has existed forever. Look at medicine. The evidence that washing your hands reduced the possibility of spreading disease existed before it was widely accepted because the groupthink was opposed to it. The people who discovered that ulcers can be caused by bacteria had to fight a years long campaign to get their findings accepted. Not because their evidence was bad, but because the groupthink was on the side of ulcers being a stress reaction. Or science. Look at how everyone poured tons of time and effort into String Theory even though it was obviously thin. Or politics. After 9/11 everyone fell into a pro-war fever dream.

I cannot possibly imagine you don't know this. I cannot possibly imagine that you haven't seen group think in your own life.

Expert consensus evolves over time but that doesn't mean you have a better alternative. Scientific agreement does change, slowly, as understandings evolve, but it's still the surest bet for the time you live on. I respect that some people may see Doctors who are actively engaged in research of the questions on the table and may follow different advice but regular lay people can't hope to come up with something better on their own and not as real participants in science. The among of time the expert advice actively harmed people probably pales in comparison to the amount of times that people throughout history were harmed by quacks or just by self-treating their ailments without trained help.

[hefdaddy42]

That's some real nice rationalization you've got going there.

Groupthink?  Come on.  How convenient.

Group think has existed forever. Look at medicine. The evidence that washing your hands reduced the possibility of spreading disease existed before it was widely accepted because the groupthink was opposed to it. The people who discovered that ulcers can be caused by bacteria had to fight a years long campaign to get their findings accepted. Not because their evidence was bad, but because the groupthink was on the side of ulcers being a stress reaction. Or science. Look at how everyone poured tons of time and effort into String Theory even though it was obviously thin. Or politics. After 9/11 everyone fell into a pro-war fever dream.

I cannot possibly imagine you don't know this. I cannot possibly imagine that you haven't seen group think in your own life.

Of course I've seen groupthink.  But not all of those examples you used are groupthink, and it's a flimsy accusation to cast in the direction of the consensus opinion being one you don't like.  It is, dare I say, tin foil-ish.

Which is really weird.

[ReaPsTA]

- Where does the 10x number come from? Is this something your friend is saying? Have you seen this in the news or something somewhere? I have attempted to Google this and cannot find a good number on it

- The crux of what you're saying feels like - because health care centers have to shut down more due to unvaccinated workers and lose more money, that unvaccinated workers are a liability. I can understand hospitals diverting resources due to COVID patients, but sick staff? What is happening here?

- The 10x is vague and refers to the greater likelihood of transmission and hospitalization among the unvaccinated. This varies by group but I've seen something like 5x for younger people and well over 10x when we're talking about the most at-risk groups.

- When your job is caring for the most immunocompromised people out there you should not be allowed to work sick, I think this is reasonable.

Here's the better question, and apologies for wasting your time by not thinking to ask this originally - How many more days a year are going to be missed for vaxxed vs. unvaxxed?

That's some real nice rationalization you've got going there.

Groupthink?  Come on.  How convenient.

Group think has existed forever. Look at medicine. The evidence that washing your hands reduced the possibility of spreading disease existed before it was widely accepted because the groupthink was opposed to it. The people who discovered that ulcers can be caused by bacteria had to fight a years long campaign to get their findings accepted. Not because their evidence was bad, but because the groupthink was on the side of ulcers being a stress reaction. Or science. Look at how everyone poured tons of time and effort into String Theory even though it was obviously thin. Or politics. After 9/11 everyone fell into a pro-war fever dream.

I cannot possibly imagine you don't know this. I cannot possibly imagine that you haven't seen group think in your own life.

Expert consensus evolves over time but that doesn't mean you have a better alternative. Scientific agreement does change, slowly, as understandings evolve, but it's still the surest bet for the time you live on. I respect that some people may see Doctors who are actively engaged in research of the questions on the table and may follow different advice but regular lay people can't hope to come up with something better on their own and not as real participants in science. The among of time the expert advice actively harmed people probably pales in comparison to the amount of times that people throughout history were harmed by quacks or just by self-treating their ailments without trained help.

- It's not necessarily about better alternatives so much as it is how much we have to act on any sort of expert consensus. With the COVID shots in particular, there's not enough there, and can't be enough there, to belittle people who don't take them, call them selfish, call them stupid, and so on. I also find any mandates regarding them very troubling in part for this reason

- One issue with any professional is what incentives they are subjected to. What social groups do they run in, who do they get their money from? We have seen what happens to perfectly qualified medical professionals or data researchers who speak out against the expert consensus. Social media bans, pressure to be fired from your academic institutions, and I have to assume (though I suppose I can't recall specific examples of) difficulties getting grant money. How many people disagree with the narrative but don't say anything because of the consequences? How many people support the expert consensus, in spite of disagreeing with it, because they're afraid of what will happen if they disagree? This is especially an issue when you get into "public health", where the major decision makers aren't even practicing physicians or researchers but bureaucrats with "Dr." in front of their name

- What I find more useful is when experts disagree with each other, because then you can read informed discussion. It's hard to see that when the consensus experts on COVID don't like going on alternative media and the skeptical experts are banned from/won't be let on corporate media sources. 'Tis a shame

- I don't have an intuition in my head for precisely how often in medicine experts are wrong vs. right, but I think the track record of experts is a bit spottier than you're characterizing it is. Over-prescription of anti-bacterial drugs having to be pulled back, the Opiod epidemic, replication crisis. And I'm sticking with the stuff that's least controversial

- I also think something that's being conflated here is actual expertise vs. "the experts". I agree completely that you should usually get opinions/advice from people who have expertise. I am still hoping Millah writes his post about vaccine engineering. He has expertise in that subject and I do not. But I..... highly question if "the experts" actually have any expertise in the fields they're supposedly experts in. And I think that public policy decision making involves knowledge about people that (a) everyone access to and (b) "the experts" are terrible at understanding. The CDC released some recommendation a few months back about how children should not hug or make contact with their pets because of some medical ailment I don't remember. The only thing I got out of that recommendation is that the people who work for the CDC don't understand people. And I don't understand on a human level how you can ever think that's an appropriate thing to recommend

That's some real nice rationalization you've got going there.

Groupthink?  Come on.  How convenient.

Group think has existed forever. Look at medicine. The evidence that washing your hands reduced the possibility of spreading disease existed before it was widely accepted because the groupthink was opposed to it. The people who discovered that ulcers can be caused by bacteria had to fight a years long campaign to get their findings accepted. Not because their evidence was bad, but because the groupthink was on the side of ulcers being a stress reaction. Or science. Look at how everyone poured tons of time and effort into String Theory even though it was obviously thin. Or politics. After 9/11 everyone fell into a pro-war fever dream.

I cannot possibly imagine you don't know this. I cannot possibly imagine that you haven't seen group think in your own life.

Of course I've seen groupthink.  But not all of those examples you used are groupthink, and it's a flimsy accusation to cast in the direction of the consensus opinion being one you don't like.  It is, dare I say, tin foil-ish.

Which is really weird.

A lot of this I addressed above - but as to the tin-foil hat thing specifically - People who thought there would be vaccine mandates were tin-foil hats. People who thought COVID was made in a lab were tin foil hat conspiracy theorists. People who thought there would be additional COVID shots were conspiracy theorists. The term has been rendered meaningless at this point.

[Skeever]

I'm not gonna respond to this point-by-point, because it all comes down to the observation I made earlier in this discussion.

At the end of the day, I'm comfortable opening up the CDC's coronavirus page, and taking what I've seen there at face value. They're the authorities, and I have to just roll with that even knowing that there are new findings constantly, and that there are disagreements and inconsistencies that get ironed out over time. This might mean I get subtoptimal treatment from time to time, because their incentives drove us toward something bad unintentionally happening to me...

I'm pretty socially minded, and thus aware of the different conflicts of interest you may be talking about. The difference is I see no real alternative. I have taken a dying infant to a pediatric ER and begged them to save him at whatever the cost or means, and at that time there was no way I could begin to understand what they were going to do to him or whether I could personally be comfortable with it (and he lived). There's no alternative to the system we have anywhere on the horizon, and I am confident I will spend my whole life the same way, with no choice but to trust my wellbeing in the hands of highly credentialed specialists who work for personal profit and at the behest of pharmaceutical companies driven primarily to accumulate capital.  As Norm MacDonald put it everyone says fuck the pharmaceutical companies until they are the one that's dying.

Sure, I don't HAVE to trust them, I could go it my own. But I don't trust any of the alternatives, or that I personally have the ability to find the truth. Heck, as I write this, I think I may trust the CDC and various healthcare industries even less than you do, but I trust the capacity for trustworthy alternatives in our system EVEN LESS than that.   

[hefdaddy42]

What I find more useful is when experts disagree with each other, because then you can read informed discussion. It's hard to see that when the consensus experts on COVID don't like going on alternative media and the skeptical experts are banned from/won't be let on corporate media sources. 'Tis a shame

You don't want the consensus to be right because you want to see the discussion?

Besides, medicine is not one of the fields where you see a lot of experts disagreeing with each other.  What you are describing happens in more interpretive disciplines, like art/film criticism, religion, even law, where people with similar credentials can come up with wildly different opnions.  Medicine isn't nearly as interpretive (at least not in those ways); the grunt work is done in research labs.  The results are what they are.

If there were lots of varying opinions at odds with each other, how could there ever be any standards of care?

[lonestar]

This should be a fun one...


There's a guy in Boston, another in Virginia, both are being denied life saving organ transplants because they refuse to get vaxxed....

[hunnus2000]

This should be a fun one...


There's a guy in Boston, another in Virginia, both are being denied life saving organ transplants because they refuse to get vaxxed....

C'est la vie! 

[Chino]

This should be a fun one...


There's a guy in Boston, another in Virginia, both are being denied life saving organ transplants because they refuse to get vaxxed....

You'll get kicked off the transplant list if you need lungs and refuse to quit smoking, or if you need a heart and refuse to lose weight. There's no shortage of people who need kidneys, and we can't be wasting organs on people who will jeopardize the longevity and value of those donations. I don't know what those people expect.

[Skeever]

This should be a fun one...


There's a guy in Boston, another in Virginia, both are being denied life saving organ transplants because they refuse to get vaxxed....

I saw this. The guy has a toddler. I can't imagine being so anti-vax that you'd jeopardize your chances of being able to see your children grow. If I were in the same position, I don't think there's anything I wouldn't do.

[Grappler]

This should be a fun one...


There's a guy in Boston, another in Virginia, both are being denied life saving organ transplants because they refuse to get vaxxed....

You'll get kicked off the transplant list if you need lungs and refuse to quit smoking, or if you need a heart and refuse to lose weight. There's no shortage of people who need kidneys, and we can't be wasting organs on people who will jeopardize the longevity and value of those donations. I don't know what those people expect.

That's exactly what the hospital said - that there are vaccination requirements/regiments that transplant patients need to adhere to, including the covid vaccine.  From what I know, transplant patients are usually on immunosuppressant drugs for a while to make sure the body doesn't reject or attack the new organ.  Makes sense to me that they need to be protected from certain illnesses via vaccines.

[lonestar]

This should be a fun one...


There's a guy in Boston, another in Virginia, both are being denied life saving organ transplants because they refuse to get vaxxed....

You'll get kicked off the transplant list if you need lungs and refuse to quit smoking, or if you need a heart and refuse to lose weight. There's no shortage of people who need kidneys, and we can't be wasting organs on people who will jeopardize the longevity and value of those donations. I don't know what those people expect.

My take exactly. I have numerous friends in the recovery rooms who have to go through enormous lengths before getting a liver transplant, with a minimum sobriety of 2 years, extensive detailed meeting attendance, and extensive work with a recovery therapists alongside it. Most usually end up going to GA or FLA for the transplant since the waiting list here is so extensive.

[Chino]

This should be a fun one...


There's a guy in Boston, another in Virginia, both are being denied life saving organ transplants because they refuse to get vaxxed....

I saw this. The guy has a toddler. I can't imagine being so anti-vax that you'd jeopardize your chances of being able to see your children grow. If I were in the same position, I don't think there's anything I wouldn't do.

I can't wrap my head around it, man. Even if the vaccine had a 50% mortality rate, that's still better than the 100% chance of death that comes with not getting the transplant.

[jingle.boy]

Choices have consequences.  Suck it up buttercup.

[Ben_Jamin]

So either way if they don't get the vaccine they'll die. And one way they die is not from the virus itself, but from worry that they will contract Covid in the hospital because their immunity will be suppressed so the organs won't be rejected, and will die from complications and the body may reject the organ?...

What if they end up getting the vaccine and their body rejects it regardless. Where does the morality lie within that situation, where everything is done to help "save" the patient, yet their own bodies reject the new organ and they die anyways. Would that just be considered the person's fate to die? Or that they were just destined to die in that moment, like a final destination type of deal....

[Skeever]

I made a longish, rambling post (or series of posts) above about my resignation that all doubts and problems with the system aside, our lives all end up in the hands of specialists. It's pretty bizarre to me that a layman could be ready to let specialists give him a heart transplant but also of the opinion that he might know a thing or two more about vaccines.

[Ben_Jamin]

I made a longish, rambling post (or series of posts) above about my resignation that all doubts and problems with the system aside, our lives all end up in the hands of specialists. It's pretty bizarre to me that a layman could be ready to let specialists give him a heart transplant but also of the opinion that he might know a thing or two more about vaccines.

It's interesting because while they are being denied organ access, the state I reside in is having issues getting supply of blood. So this means...

"The hospitals right now have about a day's worth of blood on the shelves," said Evelyn Rosado with Vitalant. "They're having to start making those really difficult decisions whether to keep the surgeries that have been scheduled for months or to go ahead and reschedule those and then start saving the blood for emergencies."

Over the past two years, New Mexico has seen a 25% decrease in blood donations, which is even more concerning because other states actually rely on New Mexico for donations too.

"We are one of the main hubs," Rosado explained. "A lot of the other states look to us whenever there's an emergency, so we can take our blood and we distribute it to other places."

This means that, if New Mexico is seeing numbers this low, Rosado says, "you know that everywhere else is really suffering."

Vitalant is urging those who qualify to make an appointment. An online questionnaire will tell you if you are eligible to give blood. If you are, you can donate up to six times a year.

"We social distance and masks are required – although we don't ask for vaccinations right now," Rosado said. "Anybody can come and donate whether vaccinated or not."

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/nationwide-blood-shortage-prompts-calls-for-donations-in-new-mexico/6364547/

Will this also affect the organ transplant surgeries as well, or will they be classified based on the urgent need of the donated organ?

The entire health industry got hit hard, and some of the situations the industry is dealing with has nothing to do with whether people got vaccinated or not. The blood supply is now low because people are too afraid to go out and donate blood, most of which was gathered by use of the mobile blood banks and blood donation events that were held.

[lonestar]

I made a longish, rambling post (or series of posts) above about my resignation that all doubts and problems with the system aside, our lives all end up in the hands of specialists. It's pretty bizarre to me that a layman could be ready to let specialists give him a heart transplant but also of the opinion that he might know a thing or two more about vaccines.

Sure doc... Go ahead and cut my heart out and replace it, but keep that dang needle away from me.. I've done my research...

[Stadler]

Choices have consequences.  Suck it up buttercup.

No, SOME choices have consequences, depending on the way the Mob is facing. 


I fully support the hospital's position, for the reasons stated, but I'm not willing to go as far as some people here.   People can make their risk evaluations on their own dime.  I know for someone in my family that has gotten the vaccine, but only under duress, they fall into this category.   They are parked on the position that we have 120+ years of heart surgery experience to draw on, to the point that there's very little we've not encountered so far.  But for them, the experience record of this vaccine is less than 5% of that. Say what you want, the COVID vaccine is a relatively new technology, and some of the innovations that went into it's success are less than a decade old, and with NO real-world experience.   It's not as ridiculous as some of you make it out to be.  It's CERTAINLY not as simple as the difference between "a needle prick" and "slicing open someone's ribcage" (my quotes, of an idea that several here have put forth).

[cramx3]

Say what you want, the COVID vaccine is a relatively new technology, and some of the innovations that went into it's success are less than a decade old, and with NO real-world experience.   It's not as ridiculous as some of you make it out to be. 

I think this type of feeling was legit a year ago, but now.... (according to Google) there are 4.11 BILLION people fully vaccinated globally (about half of the world's population).  There is A TON of real-world experience now.  This line of thinking just doesn't really hold up at this point in time IMO.  And as stated previously, if the MRNa is not for you, there is another option (at least in the US) for J&J.

[Orbert]

We were in Detroit last Monday-Tuesday for my aunt's funeral, spending the better part of two full days with my daughter who was in from Virginia.  She got home Wednesday, her boyfriend was showing symptoms, got tested Thursday, and results Saturday said he's Covid positive.  Daughter got tested Monday, results today say she's positive.

So it's been a week now and I'm not showing any symptoms, but I cancelled rehearsal tonight, and I'll probably sit out rehearsal tomorrow night as well.  Part of me says it's actually no big deal, Omicron is just a cold, but I can't knowingly expose a bunch of other people to it knowing that I might have it.  I have to know.  I'm thinking it pretty much has to be Omicron, since I'm double vaxxed and boostered, as is everyone in my family.

First test was last summer when my company paid for tests for every employee.  Second one was right after Christmas after someone at our Christmas Eve service tested positive.  Swab number three tomorrow morning.

[cramx3]

Part of me says it's actually no big deal, Omicron is just a cold, but I can't knowingly expose a bunch of other people to it knowing that I might have it.

You are doing what's right IMO.  It may be no big deal, but it's best to play it safe for others around you. (if possible)

[ReaperKK]

I agree with Cram. After dodging covid for two years I took a test a few hours ago and I'm positive too, wife is negative. Ive been feeling run down the past 5 days or so and thought fuck it, ill take a test.

The only symptoms I have is that I'm achey and lost appetite (smell and taste are still there)

[Orbert]

I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear, and even if I get it, no biggie.  But I'm 60 this year and I'm the second youngest person in the choir.  I can't knowingly expose these people.  It might just be a cold for me, but it could kill them.

I've had a weird cough and stuffy nose for a few days now.  Shit.  So... if I have it, what do I do?  I'm not going to the hospital; that's for people who can't breathe and might die.  I guess I call my doctor and see if there's a pill I can take or something.

[TAC]

Doing the right thing there O! Hopefully it passes quickly for you.

[ProfessorPeart]

And of course, we have Omicron v2 starting its ascension.

https://deadline.com/2022/01/ba2-california-cases-stealth-omicron-1234920347/

[Cool Chris]

I was going to have a problem with that issue with transplants, but then I read up on it, and learned there was some level of consistency with regards to these procedures, based on medicine and not morals or shaming. I did not know about the issues lonestar brought up, for example.

[Harmony]

Getting your name put on any organ transplant list means you sign on the dotted line that you will be up to date on ALL vaccines.

This has been standard policy for literally decades.  After the patient receives a transplant they go on immunosuppressants for life, it makes complete sense that if we are going to give them your loved ones harvested organ after death that the recipient does the bare minimum to prevent themselves from vaccine preventable diseases.

UNOS does not fuck around.  And the guy in Boston was undoubtedly informed of this before he signed up.   

[Cool Chris]

Right, so if it is all standard, and we are not making up special Covid rules as we go, there is consistency.

I cannot speak intelligently about such procedures, but I am sure to your point there are countless consultations and endless paperwork involved in such surgeries. It isn't like getting your car's oil changed.