(10-28-2021, 09:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2021, 10:43 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I never said non-existent. I specifically stated that the vaccination does not PREVENT the spread of covid. You said it reduced it, and I am saying not by enough to fire 4% of your work force. This study confirms my position that, even though it does reduce transmission of Covid, it's predominantly in the elderly, for the first 3 months (before dropping off to nearly 0), and doesn't affect the work place. So, who cares that it reduces it a little. That's not my point. The point is you shouldn't be firing anyone. It's not a scientific position. It's a liability decision.
I never said you were evil. I just think you're being a nincompoop whose short-sighted decisions are directly and indirectly hurting healthcare. Honestly, I'd be shocked if these types of hair-brained decisions weren't hurting your hospitals bottom line.
I can't get you to understand that "reducing" means "preventing" can I? It's just right beyond your ability to accept that "reducing" transmission" means that in many cases it "prevented" it. If 10 people are exposed and the vaccine prevents 6 of them from getting sick then guess what? Prevention. If 1 of those 4 who got it was vaccinated then they don't transmit it forward. You know what you call that? Prevention. You say it doesn't prevent it. Then you say it doesn't prevent it enough. Then you say it's "just a little". Then "it doesn't matter in the workplace". You keep having to change your position to maintain your belief that the vaccine isn't working when overwhelmingly the admission data shows that it is. The people hurting healthcare are those who don't get the shot and then overwhelm our staff and facilities when a wave comes through. We're wasting money treating people we didn't have to because they are too whatever you want to call it to just get the shot.
I am not changing my position. You're the one posting a study that came out AFTER you fired healthcare workers. That's super great following the science. But, that said, maybe you think I am changing my position because I constantly have to keep adapting to you. I understand what you are saying when you're talking about reduction being prevention, but, so we're clear, when I say it's not preventing it, I mean specifically that vaccinated people can and do still carry this virus. It still spreads through them. The vaccine alone is not sufficient for stopping Covid. However, the argument of reduction or prevention is not important to me, so I will use your terminology.
If we take your position and flesh it through, I would argue that you are leaving very important bits out of the equation. Do the same thing with natural immunity. You end up with the same scenario above, but with better results long term. If 10 people are exposed to the virus, and 6 of them have recovered, then guess what? Prevention. I could keep parroting your example, but you get the point. How many of the people you fired already had natural immunity? Do you even know? Of course not, because that wasn't a factor in your decision.
I am talking about a wholistic approach to data interpretation, and you're starting and stopping with the vaccine. If you would actually compare the reduction offered by combining natural immunity and demographic risk factors, then subtract that from the reduction provided by the vaccine, you would realize that it's not that different, ESPECIALLY not for people who are healthy under 50. I can't emphasize that enough.
Can you even do that? Do you have the data in front of you to make that type of comparison? No. You don't. Because it's not provided. Is firing 4% of the work force, who have likely already been exposed to the virus, because they don't want to take a NOVEL vaccine with NO longterm studies, rational? Does that help healthcare? Does that help your bottom line?
The answer to those questions are all no, but you don't care. You are not actually informed. You're working with very limited information. You can't actually make the suggested comparison above because that data doesn't exist. So, spare me. You're not following the science. You're following the CDC. You're doing what they say because you know there's a potential liability issue. They aren't providing the data. So, while your rationale may make sense to you, it's just speculation, and your hospital is erring on the side of covering its [BLEEP].
Until this vaccine has been tested long term, spare me the bloviation about hospitals being overwhelmed for a whole 2 months. Newsflash, unless their is some mutant variant, that is going to go down each year because more and more people will have natural immunity. Geez, dude. It's not rocket science.
![[Image: FeZIWhP2.jpeg]](https://media.greatawakening.win/post/FeZIWhP2.jpeg)