Another study out that shows delta is not spread significantly more by unvaccinated than vaccinated individuals. Admittedly, this study is small, but it's tracking with the last study FSG and I debated. Delta, at home where it is most transmittable, had a 38% secondary attack rate in unvaccinated individuals and 22% SAR in vaccinated individuals. That's a difference of 16% at the place where the virus is MOST likely to spread. Transmission to vaccinated individuals was similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, 23% and 25% respectively.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanin...ZcC3PZwDyw
So, just for fun, since we've been discussing it on this board, Let's see what the numbers look like using a hospital similar in size and scope to the one where FSG works. He has 12k employees at his hospital. I am going to estimate that they treat 50k patients per year, which I'm hoping is a close, but slightly high number. Now, this is a complicated math problem, so I am going to approximate a bit, but I'll stay as close as I can to the broadest information we have currently. The one exception, that is going to drastically tilt the numbers in favor of FSG's position, is that I am going to pretend every single person at the hospital has Covid. The reason for this is that I have no way of knowing what percentage of people have Covid at any given time. To offset that, I am just assuming everyone has it.
Now, irl, if this were the case, it would definitely increase the rate of transmission, but for now, I am going to just use the numbers from the previous two studies, and give FSG the excess numbers as a cushion for any bad math that might support his point. I have been super generous in favor of FSG's position in my estimations, and I will point out some considerations later that would drive the unvaccinated number down significantly, so keep that in mind while you read this.
First, let's take a look at this assuming all things are equal. Let's say there were 6000 unvaccinated employees and 6000 vaccinated employees that saw 50,000 patients over the course of a year, each group splitting the patients. We are going to assume also that the population has a similar rate of vaccination as we currently see in Jacksonville, which is a 60/40 split. Vaccinated employees infect 3450 (17) vaccinated patients. Unvaccinated employees infect 3750 (18) vaccinated patients. The parenthesis are deaths, btw. No matter how we look at it, if the patients are vaccinated, the rate of transmission, death, and hospitalization is going to be similar.
Now lets take a look at unvaccinated patients, where I think we'll find FSG has a stronger point. Vaccinated employees would infect 2200 (35) unvaccinated patients, and his unvaccinated employees would infect 3800 (60). If all of the employees had been vaccinated, that policy would save the lives of 25 patients. IF those patients were vaccinated, those deaths would drop to 11 and 12 respectively. So, as you can see, the single greatest protection is not the vaccination status of the employees, but the patients. However, considering the responsibility the medical community has to its patients, it is not unreasonable to want to protect the unvaccinated patients from the unvaccinated employees, so point in favor of FSG. I will concede, that all things being equal, it is better to having vaccinated employees.
That said, All things are not equal, and the actual difference we are looking at is much, much smaller. I know the vaccination rate in the medical community is higher than the average. I believe it was at 75% when the community as a whole was at 50. So, without any mandates the death totals change dramatically. The vaccinated will transmit the disease to 8475 (137) people total, and the unvaxxed employees will transmit the disease to 3775 (39) people total. In this scenario, we go from a difference of 25 deaths to a difference of 13 deaths over the course of the year. So, without any heavy handed tactics at all, the numbers begin to reduce dramatically. Again, I am being conservative with these estimates. I actually think the vaccinated numbers were higher early on for medical professionals than what I used here.
Now let's look at the mandatory numbers. There are 480 people spreading the virus to vaccinated patients at a rate of 25%, and 11, 520 people spreading the virus to vaccinated individuals at a rate of 23%.The unvaccinated employees would infect 300 vaccinated patients. The vaccinated employees would infect 6,624 vaccinated patients. The unvaccinated employees would infect 304 unvaccinated patients, and the vaccinated employees would infect 4,224 unvaccinated patients. All in all, the unvaccinated employees would be responsible for 604 infections and 5 deaths and the vaccinated employees would be responsible for 10,848 and 100 deaths. In this scenario, we are now looking at a difference of 1 life. A mandatory vaccination policy in this scenario would save one life over the course of the year. Is that worth firing 480 people? What are you really gaining by firing them?
I said I would post, no matter the result, and, fortunately for me, it looked about what I expected. I have never questioned the efficacy of the vaccine. It is very clear from looking at the numbers that the vaccine does reduce the spread, deaths, and hospitalizations. In this regard, FSG is right that it is a preventative measure.
However, I want to point out that, even though I am approximating, I am trying to be conservative in favor of FSG's position. I would love to be as accurate as possible, but the numbers just aren't there to really work this out in detail. Here are some factors that are not considered that would drive down the unvaccinated numbers considerably:
Firstly, and most importantly, it assumes that none of the unvaxxed in his hospital had Covid. That's almost certainly untrue. Taking the CDC numbers, we can cut all of those numbers down by at least a third (again, conservatively). Secondly, it uses the rate of secondary attack in homes, which is the highest rate of transfer. Anywhere else, those numbers are reduced, maybe by a tenth. Thirdly, this it does not factor in age demographics at all. By taking the general numbers, I am heavily skewing these numbers towards the elderly and immuno-compromised, which is probably not the group most likely to be taking a stand against vaccination, which would also cause a drastic fall in deaths and hospitalizations. Lastly, but not leastly, it's looking like there is going to be Covid season, a period of a few months in which Covid is most deadly. So, even though I factored this in for a whole year, it is really only going to be present for a few months. I would wager, if all of the above was properly considered, you would get little to no difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated spread.
All of that was done to arrive, again, at my original point. FSG says he does this for the patients, which I believe makes sense when you stop analyzing at a certain point. HOWEVER, when you look at the numbers on an apple to apple basis, it becomes clear that these mandatory policies are not actually creating that much of a difference out of what remains. His hospital fired 480 employees to reduce the spread and reduce the burden on their system, but I am arguing that the loss of those people will create a greater burden than what they were going to experience otherwise. FSG, how many lives could be saved by the addition of 480 people to your staff? If it's more than one, you created a strain on your healthcare system by removing them. This is my point. This has always been my point. I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing what I'm saying.
TLDR: Even giving the most generous numbers possible to the pro-vax position, given the high rate of voluntary vaccination, mandatory policies are stupid, and based in hasty thinking. Had people not been responsive to getting the vaccine, you may have had a point, but you don't looking at the numbers as they are. There is no need for strong-armed tactics as of right now. That may change with a different variant.
To the people who don't understand otherwise, look and see how the vaccination is not actually stopping the spread of Covid. That's happening whether someone is vaccinated or not. The single greatest thing you can do if you're afraid of Covid is to get vaccinated yourself. The unvaccinated spreading covid does not drastically change the rate of the spread of the Delta variant to vaccinated individuals. It does spread among the unvaccinated at a higher pace, but that is the choice unvaccinated individuals are making. They would rather roll the dice with Covid than the vaccine, and the numbers are bearing out that that is a perfectly fine choice for them, at least not out of line with eating too much sugar or vaping.