If and when I'm eligible for the booster, I'm getting that too. I ain't skeered.

---

If and when I'm eligible for the booster, I'm getting that too. I ain't skeered.

I ain't skeered of COVID, either. Less than a 1% chance of dying? Screw it, I take bigger risks driving my vehicle in Orange Park where those hicks can't drive for crap.

---

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.

The answers to your questions are "yes", "yes", and "no". Not that you care since you've already decided our motivations for the actions we've taken. And you're right, it's not rocket science, it's virology, epidemiology, and public health, all of which support the actions we've taken.

Brought to you by Pfizer. 

Everything Brought To You By: PFIZER - YouTube

---

Just out of curiosity, fsg, how many people work at your hospital?

---

There are much larger numbers than most companies expected to file exemptions. Companies seemed to be getting bad advice that said 1-3% would file for exemptions and/or refuse. The real numbers, although most HR reps won't give it out, is upwards of 30% depending on location and company industry.

I know of a company with a few thousand employees across several states that thought they would have 50 employees. They got so many requests that they had to start immediately reviewing them and completely change their plans.


FDNY canceled all vacations through the end of the year but still wants you to get the Vax by Friday. Their union isn't as good the NYPD or Sanitation. Sanitation is slowing down legally and if Monday comes around with the mandate still in place, garbage isn't getting picked up.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

---

Data shock: During pandemic, gov't actions have killed more than the virus

During the pandemic, many deaths have occurred in the U.S., approaching 2 million Americans. But ponder this: Have large numbers of excess deaths over pre-pandemic years resulted from something other than COVID infections?

https://www.wnd.com/2021/10/data-shock-p...rAxdVELif8

---

Just out of curiosity, fsg, how many people work at your hospital?

12,000, of whom about 400 were granted exemptions and the rest have a 99.2% compliance rate. I have several hospitals in my health system, but I work on the physician network side supporting about 600 doctors regionally.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Hey FSG,

Have you heard anything new about the NovaVax vaccine? Whether it's even viable or just a pipe dream? I think a lot of people reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine would take the NovaVax if it actually does as advertised. I'm not "in the know" on these types of things and would assume a new vaccine would be something the healthcare industry would be looking at very intently.

It's certainly viable. The difference from the other vaccines is that NovaVax contains the spike protein rather than forcing the body to produce it. We currently have the mRNAs and then J&J, AstraZeneca and Sputnik who use vector/adenovirus where both types force the body to first create the spike protein, so having a more traditional vaccine would almost certainly persuade those who are uncertain about the newer delivery platforms. My understanding is that Nova is currently having production/development problems where they can't get the purity levels up over the required 90%, but if they can do that then they should be on their way.

Well that's definitely the route I'd go, that's for sure. Just too scary thinking of an outside element telling my body what to do - and the science can say all it wants about it being safe. I remember the food pyramid and the sugar industry paying off the Heart doctor's association to tell Congress that fat was what caused heart disease and not sugar when literally all the actual data said the opposite.

---

It's certainly viable. The difference from the other vaccines is that NovaVax contains the spike protein rather than forcing the body to produce it. We currently have the mRNAs and then J&J, AstraZeneca and Sputnik who use vector/adenovirus where both types force the body to first create the spike protein, so having a more traditional vaccine would almost certainly persuade those who are uncertain about the newer delivery platforms. My understanding is that Nova is currently having production/development problems where they can't get the purity levels up over the required 90%, but if they can do that then they should be on their way.

Well that's definitely the route I'd go, that's for sure. Just too scary thinking of an outside element telling my body what to do - and the science can say all it wants about it being safe. I remember the food pyramid and the sugar industry paying off the Heart doctor's association to tell Congress that fat was what caused heart disease and not sugar when literally all the actual data said the opposite.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what i've heard from my medical family is that the method using the adenovirus as the transport mechanism into the cell cytoplasm might be risky because it's suspected that the adenovirus itself can possilby contribute to cancer, based on early studies. Prob too early to tell, but something to keep an eye on. Of course, that wouldnt be an issue with the Novovax, since it would never enter the cell cytoplasm.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

It's certainly viable. The difference from the other vaccines is that NovaVax contains the spike protein rather than forcing the body to produce it. We currently have the mRNAs and then J&J, AstraZeneca and Sputnik who use vector/adenovirus where both types force the body to first create the spike protein, so having a more traditional vaccine would almost certainly persuade those who are uncertain about the newer delivery platforms. My understanding is that Nova is currently having production/development problems where they can't get the purity levels up over the required 90%, but if they can do that then they should be on their way.

Well that's definitely the route I'd go, that's for sure. Just too scary thinking of an outside element telling my body what to do - and the science can say all it wants about it being safe. I remember the food pyramid and the sugar industry paying off the Heart doctor's association to tell Congress that fat was what caused heart disease and not sugar when literally all the actual data said the opposite.

These are very strong reasons why I don't trust the FDA, the USDA or any other "agency" of their kind. Anyone can be bought by lobbyists, big pharma, big corporations, etc., to send a certain message to the masses and the masses listen without doing their own research. 

I just found out my MIL is having tests run to find out if her memory issues are related to early dementia or Alzheimer's neither of which her doctor thinks is the case. He feels that it is due to her diet/nutrition which was absolutely driven by the food pyramid and low fat crap. That whole scheme has physically and mentally injured and killed a lot of people and nobody is held responsible.

---

Everything you hear those lawyers shilling for was once "Approved by the FDA" Meaning the pharma company paid enough.

I'll take my vitamins, horse dewormer, and my chances with a 99% survival rate.

Anyone who shoots their kids up with this should be euthanized. Freaking bizarro world.

---

It's probably higher than that. I checked mine on the UK website, and my chances of living were 1 in 111,000.

---

But hey, it's 1 in 200,000 with the vaccine. SO much safer.

---

Biden administration policies cause another tragedy.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/boy-dies-fire...-sick-outs

---

Biden administration policies cause another tragedy.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/boy-dies-fire...-sick-outs

Lol.......a 4 minute response time is Biden's fault

Biden really does live rent free in your head.  You are obsessed with him.

---

Biden administration policies cause another tragedy.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/boy-dies-fire...-sick-outs

Lol.......a 4 minute response time is Biden's fault

Biden really does live rent free in your head.  You are obsessed with him.

 Exchange Biden with Trump and pot meet kettle.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Biden administration policies cause another tragedy.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/boy-dies-fire...-sick-outs

Lol.......a 4 minute response time is Biden's fault

Biden really does live rent free in your head.  You are obsessed with him.

Normally, I would have asked if defending this guy is really the hill you choose to die on, but when I learned you aren't even an America, that changed everything.

---

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/...on-sunday/

More results of Bidens policies.

---

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/...on-sunday/

More results of Bidens policies.

Good.. Elections have consequences

---

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.

---

Well, my duaghter and son-in-law just tested positive. I know both have asthma and my son-in-law has sleep apnea. Hopefully they're good. Neither vaccinated.

---