British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/coronavirus-930602/)

Shard Feb 2nd 2022 1:26 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
There certainly needs to be more public education on vaccines. As this Coronavirus subsides (as seems to be the case) those that were adamant about not getting vaccinated will become even more convinced in the validity of their view. Essentially, they have benefited from immunization effect that the rest of the community gained through vaccination. A more virulent virus will not be quite so forgiving.

Danny B Feb 2nd 2022 3:43 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Anyone here living in Ottawa right now? This guy hasn't slept in 5 days. Warning for swearing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...g_their_horns/


Shard Feb 2nd 2022 4:07 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 13092217)
Anyone here living in Ottawa right now? This guy hasn't slept in 5 days. Warning for swearing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...g_their_horns/

Impressed that they can have this heated debate with zero violence. :thumbup:


printer Feb 4th 2022 12:57 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13092153)
Missing the point. Again. The above is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the probability of ending up in ICU is more than an order of mag less for triple vaccinated than unvaxxed.

Your view that everything will be fine without any measures is hopefully true but happens to be contrary to that of people who actually know something about the subject. Theresa Tam was on TV yesterday saying that more vaxxing is how we get back to normality. Comparison with other jurisdictions would be valid if we had the same number of ICUs, doctors and nurses. We have one of the lowest. Right now waiting times in hospitals are abdominal.

Your info on BC is false. Quote from the current rules: “Places that do not offer full meal service must close. This includes places like bars, nightclubs and lounges that do not serve meals.” Its not voluntary at all. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/c...o/restrictions

Ok but it seems we are bombarded with figures from the media and doomsday scenarios from out so called experts and yet these are often hugely exaggerated. From todays latest here in BC 1500 new cases and 145 in ICU. Now i don't have any exact data to share right now but pretty sure the ICU capacity in BC overall is at least 3 times that. Todays numbers added 9 to the ICU count which is not ideal but here's the thing a month ago a story on "Vancouver is awesome" wrote that modelling data suggested we could see 1000 patients in ICU over coming weeks but they added and i quote:
And in what Cytrynbaum said is the most likely scenario, more than 2,000 patients would land in B.C.’s intensive care units over the coming weeks. That's approaching triple the capacity of the province's hospitals.
They then went on to say:
Roughly 90 per cent of B.C.'s 510 base critical care beds were already occupied as of Jan. 4. Yet todays figures a month down the road show 145.

Clearly someone needs to recalculate.

Mordko Feb 4th 2022 2:43 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
I have no idea what they modelled and what assumptions were used but normally predictive tools are used to implement certain measures to mitigate problematic outcomes. One assumes the prediction was used to make such changes, eg by rolling out booster vaccination program earlier and faster and to incentivize vaccination in reluctant populations. If so, and the measures prevented hospitals from being overwhelmed, I would argue that the “so-called experts” did a good job.

printer Feb 4th 2022 4:51 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13092509)
I have no idea what they modelled and what assumptions were used but normally predictive tools are used to implement certain measures to mitigate problematic outcomes. One assumes the prediction was used to make such changes, eg by rolling out booster vaccination program earlier and faster and to incentivize vaccination in reluctant populations. If so, and the measures prevented hospitals from being overwhelmed, I would argue that the “so-called experts” did a good job.

The story was from Jan 4th and predicting 2000 cases in ICU in coming weeks. It's now been 4 weeks and figure is less than 10% of the prediction. There were no new regulations added since that date to justify the much lower case numbers in ICU. We have of course seen a serious shortage of hospital staff due to illness and you cannot blame the current staff off sick as being unvaccinated. So what we have is hospitals being overwhelmed due to staffing issues and nowhere near the patients being admitted that some expert predicted so i guess its a win win eh?

Mordko Feb 4th 2022 1:07 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
If the story was from Jan 4th then assumptions would have been developed several weeks prior. Usually it takes time to do the analysis and write a report and then have it reviewed by the government and published. I am seeing a whole lot of new measures BC took just before Christmas.

Gozit Feb 4th 2022 1:24 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by printer (Post 13092518)
The story was from Jan 4th and predicting 2000 cases in ICU in coming weeks. It's now been 4 weeks and figure is less than 10% of the prediction. There were no new regulations added since that date to justify the much lower case numbers in ICU. We have of course seen a serious shortage of hospital staff due to illness and you cannot blame the current staff off sick as being unvaccinated. So what we have is hospitals being overwhelmed due to staffing issues and nowhere near the patients being admitted that some expert predicted so i guess its a win win eh?

:nod:

This is what i'm hearing from my friends who are healthcare workers. I also know personally a number of people who left their jobs due to the higher stress and issues of working for the hospital system during a pandemic. They've since moved on to private positions making almost double what they were making in the public system, with less stress, no vax mandates, and without having their employment contract stomped on by the emergency act. So who can blame them really.

Mordko Feb 4th 2022 1:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
A lot of private companies have “vax mandates”. Justifiably so. Doing what one can to reduce stress on the hospital workers who stayed.

Gozit Feb 4th 2022 1:38 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13092589)
A lot of private companies have “vax mandates”. Justifiably so. Doing what one can to reduce stress on the hospital workers who stayed.

There are lots of people (myself included) who are vaccinated but disagree with the mandates.

BristolUK Feb 4th 2022 2:21 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by printer (Post 13092499)
... but here's the thing a month ago a story on "Vancouver is awesome" wrote that modelling data suggested we could see 1000 patients in ICU over coming weeks but they added and i quote:
And in what Cytrynbaum said is the most likely scenario, more than 2,000 patients would land in B.C.’s intensive care units over the coming weeks. That's approaching triple the capacity of the province's hospitals.
They then went on to say:
Roughly 90 per cent of B.C.'s 510 base critical care beds were already occupied as of Jan. 4. Yet todays figures a month down the road show 145.

Clearly someone needs to recalculate.

I imagine that the report's use of ICU, followed by the expression critical care beds suggests that they are not quite the same thing and that's why the numbers are different; Critical care beds can include other conditions and are not necessarily ICU.
Googling your quote I found the same reference to 90% of 510 critical care beds occupied, but it was last September (Vancouver Sun) and went on to refer to 156 in ICU with 156 being a third. So that 90% of 510 beds was a reference to all patients.

Curiously CBC on Feb 3rd reports that same 145 number in ICU but points out that a month earlier - beginning of January - it was 86.

That's quite an increase.

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13092509)
I have no idea what they modelled and what assumptions were used but normally predictive tools are used to implement certain measures to mitigate problematic outcomes. One assumes the prediction was used to make such changes, eg by rolling out booster vaccination program earlier and faster and to incentivize vaccination in reluctant populations. If so, and the measures prevented hospitals from being overwhelmed, I would argue that the “so-called experts” did a good job.


Originally Posted by printer (Post 13092518)
The story was from Jan 4th and predicting 2000 cases in ICU in coming weeks. It's now been 4 weeks and figure is less than 10% of the prediction. There were no new regulations added since that date to justify the much lower case numbers in ICU.

I'm not overly familiar with what happened, when in BC but in googling to find some kind of timetable I found reference to three January changes to public measures since the modelling.

It's hard for me to tell what they were but while the media focussed on the most dramatic model, most of them had something somewhat less but still high.

And in a month that saw at least three changes to public health measures not in place at the time of the modelling, the numbers occupying ICU beds still doubled.






I don't know what Vancouver is awesome is but it also uses the same detail you gave, as well as making references to multiple models based on stuff known at that time. As Mordko suggests, maybe, in prompting the taking of those public health measures, they did a good job after all

Danny B Feb 4th 2022 8:31 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
I'm confused, I thought the pharmaceutical companies said that their vaccines did protect against Omicron?


Tam said it's now clear that the primary series of a COVID-19 vaccine — the first two shots of an mRNA vaccine or a viral vector product like the AstraZeneca vaccine — do not protect against an Omicron infection.

But these shots still offer "reasonably good protection" against severe outcomes like hospitalization and death. A third shot provides "superior protection," dramatically reducing the likelihood of severe outcomes, she said. A third dose might also help to prevent an actual infection, Tam added.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...onse-1.6339609

Mordko Feb 4th 2022 9:27 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 13092646)
I'm confused, I thought the pharmaceutical companies said that their vaccines did protect against Omicron?



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...onse-1.6339609

The text is very clear. “Vaccines protect against Omicron” - yes, against ending up in ICUs. That’s what Tam said. Two AZ vaccines don’t protect against being infected but do protect against being very sick.

Danny B Feb 4th 2022 9:42 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13092656)
The text is very clear. “Vaccines protect against Omicron” - yes, against ending up in ICUs. That’s what Tam said. Two AZ vaccines don’t protect against being infected but do protect against being very sick.

Well it aint stopping the deaths in BC.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...16071a5d5f.jpg

Shard Feb 4th 2022 9:56 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 13092658)
Well it aint stopping the deaths in BC.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...16071a5d5f.jpg

​​​​​​A full picture would take each of those colour categories, and illustrate the condition number (eg. deaths) out of the condition population. Set to % terms it would show that unvaccinated are far more likely to die than vaccinated. As above, it would be easy for someone to draw an incorrect conclusion.

Mordko Feb 4th 2022 11:07 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Danny B (Post 13092658)
Well it aint stopping the deaths in BC.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...16071a5d5f.jpg

Compare the first and the last pie charts. Very clear that vaccination is preventing deaths in BC.

The picture would be even more striking had they done it by age.

OrangeMango Feb 7th 2022 12:11 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 13092582)
:nod:

This is what i'm hearing from my friends who are healthcare workers. I also know personally a number of people who left their jobs due to the higher stress and issues of working for the hospital system during a pandemic. They've since moved on to private positions making almost double what they were making in the public system, with less stress, no vax mandates, and without having their employment contract stomped on by the emergency act. So who can blame them really.

I would find it a form of gross negligence and even gross incompetence if a health care worker does his / her job without having been vaccinated against Covid 19. Better salaries in the private sector don't surprise me, though. I wouldn't blame anybody for moving on to a better paid job.

Shard Feb 7th 2022 12:21 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by OrangeMango (Post 13093086)
I would find it a form of gross negligence and even gross incompetence if a health care worker does his / her job without having been vaccinated against Covid 19. Better salaries in the private sector don't surprise me, though. I wouldn't blame anybody for moving on to a better paid job.

80,000 such health care workers in the NHS. They were going to be mandated to be vaccinated, but it would have meant such a staff shortage that the government backed down. Perhaps you saw the consultant that argued his case against to Sajid Javid (health minister) on a news segment.

Revin Kevin Feb 7th 2022 12:33 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by OrangeMango (Post 13093086)
I would find it a form of gross negligence and even gross incompetence if a health care worker does his / her job without having been vaccinated against Covid 19. Better salaries in the private sector don't surprise me, though. I wouldn't blame anybody for moving on to a better paid job.

​​​​​​So presumably you would you refuse life saving treatment from an un-vaxed medic - I don't think so!

OrangeMango Feb 7th 2022 1:03 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 13093088)
80,000 such health care workers in the NHS. They were going to be mandated to be vaccinated, but it would have meant such a staff shortage that the government backed down. Perhaps you saw the consultant that argued his case against to Sajid Javid (health minister) on a news segment.

I guess, they had to back down to keep the NHS from completely colapsing?


Originally Posted by Revin Kevin (Post 13093093)
​​​​​​So presumably you would you refuse life saving treatment from an un-vaxed medic - I don't think so!

I think this statement is a bit suggestive. And it's hardly life saving, if un vaccinated medical staff are around, it may be, but it decreases the certainty.

To me, an unvaccinated health worker, is something similar as one using a dirty needle to inject something life saving.

It's only a ridiculous discussion.

Shard Feb 7th 2022 1:09 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by OrangeMango (Post 13093103)
I guess, they had to back down to keep the NHS from completely colapsing?


I think this statement is a bit suggestive. And it's hardly life saving, if un vaccinated medical staff are around, it may be, but it decreases the certainty.

To me, an unvaccinated health worker, is something similar as one using a dirty needle to inject something life saving.

It's only a ridiculous idea.

Yes, it would appear so.

I agree that it's irresponsible for healthcare staff not to be vaccinated. And you would think they would have learned about the principles of infectious disease during their training.

Almost Canadian Feb 7th 2022 1:42 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 13093108)
Yes, it would appear so.

I agree that it's irresponsible for healthcare staff not to be vaccinated. And you would think they would have learned about the principles of infectious disease during their training.

Eh? If the vaccines work and you are vaccinated, what does it matter that someone treating you isn't? If the person being treated is not vaccinated, they have made their decision and can hardly complain if another has made the same decision

Jerseygirl Feb 7th 2022 1:53 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13093118)
Eh? If the vaccines work and you are vaccinated, what does it matter that someone treating you isn't? If the person being treated is not vaccinated, they have made their decision and can hardly complain if another has made the same decision

It does matter. Maybe the triple vaccinated patient is 80+, or has an underlaying health condition, or due to an health condition cannot be vaccinated. Even though they are vaccinated they could still get very ill, or worse, from Covid. Anyone who is vaccinated can still get the virus, but more importantly they can pass it on.

BristolUK Feb 7th 2022 2:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13093118)
Eh? If the vaccines work and you are vaccinated, what does it matter that someone treating you isn't?

From previous discussions it is clear you know that the unvaccinated are more likely to suffer ill effects from covid and more likely to pass it on.

Therefore you know that what matters in being treated by someone unvaccinated is the greater chance of them passing it to you and the possibility that as they are more likely to suffer ill effects if they do get covid, their actual treatment might be substandard and actually dangerous.

We know you are not stupid. So what is your motivation behind such comments?

Almost Canadian Feb 7th 2022 2:02 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 13093122)
It does matter. Maybe the triple vaccinated patient is 80+, or has an underlaying health condition, or due to an health condition cannot be vaccinated. Even though they are vaccinated they could still get very ill, or worse, from Covid. Anyone who is vaccinated can still get the virus, but more importantly they can pass it on.

OK. So, if what you have stated is correct, how is the patient in your example to benefit from the vaccinated healthcare worker versus the unvaccinated healthcare worker? I would imagine that there is a requirement for all healthcare workers to be tested so as to show that they do not have it and, therefore, are at risk from passing it on.

BristolUK Feb 7th 2022 2:08 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13093124)
OK. So, if what you have stated is correct, how is the patient in your example to benefit from the vaccinated healthcare worker versus the unvaccinated healthcare worker? I would imagine that there is a requirement for all healthcare workers to be tested so as to show that they do not have it and, therefore, are at risk from passing it on.

It's almost as if you haven't heard of outbreaks in hospitals among health workers isn't it.:blink:


Almost Canadian Feb 7th 2022 3:23 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13093123)
From previous discussions it is clear you know that the unvaccinated are more likely to suffer ill effects from covid and more likely to pass it on.

Therefore you know that what matters in being treated by someone unvaccinated is the greater chance of them passing it to you and the possibility that as they are more likely to suffer ill effects if they do get covid, their actual treatment might be substandard and actually dangerous.

We know you are not stupid. So what is your motivation behind such comments?

You are putting words into my mouth. I have never stated that the unvaccinated are more likely to pass it on. If one is infected, one has the potential to pass it on.

It's to point out the hypocrisy of the vaccinated/unvaccinated debate.

One assumes that all healthcare workers must be tested everyday. If they are not, I would ask: Why not? Being vaccinated does not mean that one cannot pass it on as has been demonstrated.

If they are and everyone is clear, whether vaccinated or not, you will have to explain to me what the issue is.

Shard Feb 7th 2022 3:58 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 13093122)
It does matter. Maybe the triple vaccinated patient is 80+, or has an underlaying health condition, or due to an health condition cannot be vaccinated. Even though they are vaccinated they could still get very ill, or worse, from Covid. Anyone who is vaccinated can still get the virus, but more importantly they can pass it on.

Thank you for explaining the obvious !
​​​​
It's surprising that the basics of infectious disease are so hard for some to understand.

Jerseygirl Feb 7th 2022 4:02 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 13093140)
Thank you for explaining the obvious !
​​​​
It's surprising that the basics of infectious disease are so hard for some to understand.

IMO it is not so much that they don’t understand, as they do not want to understand, It is no use arguing/debating with antivaxxers. May as well bang your head against a brick wall. :banghead:

BristolUK Feb 7th 2022 4:07 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13093138)
You are putting words into my mouth. I have never stated that the unvaccinated are more likely to pass it on. If one is infected, one has the potential to pass it on..

Nope. I have not put words into your mouth. I said you know of the facts mentioned.We have both talked about it, with references to back it up and I know the same thing has been said by others to you.


One assumes that all healthcare workers must be tested everyday. If they are not, I would ask: Why not?
I believe they are screened every day. I imagine the resources needed for testing everyone every day might be problematic. The rapid kits are already in such short supply in places that people with symptoms are even discouraged (stay home and watch for symptoms) from trying to get them unless they are in an at risk group and it's more important to know.

Being vaccinated does not mean that one cannot pass it on as has been demonstrated.
Yes, just as it has been demonstrated that the vaccinated are less likely to pass it on (infectious for a shorter period) and if they do pass it on, it's been shown that it's a lighter load.

If they are and everyone is clear, whether vaccinated or not, you will have to explain to me what the issue is
The issue is that an unvaccinated person who gets covid is infectious for longer and likely to pass on a higher covid load, than a vaccinated person who gets covid. There, that's twice.

If you're treated by an unvaccinated person the chances of getting covid from them are, thus, higher than being treated by a vaccinated person.

Almost Canadian Feb 7th 2022 4:09 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 13093140)
Thank you for explaining the obvious !
​​​​
It's surprising that the basics of infectious disease are so hard for some to understand.

It's precisely because I understand the basics that I have made the comments that I have made above. Please explain the issue to me, from your point of view, so that I can understand your position, in light of what I have stated above.

Shard Feb 7th 2022 4:10 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 13093142)
IMO it is not so much that they don’t understand, as they do not want to understand, It is no use arguing/debating with antivaxxers. May as well bang your head against a brick wall. :banghead:

Yes. Constantly looking for loopholes or contradictory information. There was someone on BBC Question Time last week arguing with a senior immunologist based on readings he had done on the internet. The host even had to point out the absurdity of the situation.

Almost Canadian Feb 7th 2022 4:12 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 13093142)
IMO it is not so much that they don’t understand, as they do not want to understand, It is no use arguing/debating with antivaxxers. May as well bang your head against a brick wall. :banghead:

I have had both shots.

If you accept that the vaccinated can pass on the virus, could you please explain to me why you believe that healthcare workers that are not vaccinated are more dangerous to their patients than those that have been vaccinated are? What danger do they present that a vaccinated one doesn't?

Shard Feb 7th 2022 4:16 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13093147)
It's precisely because I understand the basics that I have made the comments that I have made above. Please explain the issue to me, from your point of view, so that I can understand your position, in light of what I have stated above.

We've been through it before AC, at length. At best you could argue here that you are prepared to accept a higher infection rate (in hospitals) than those of us that want vaccine mandates.

Almost Canadian Feb 7th 2022 4:18 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13093146)
Nope. I have not put words into your mouth. I said you know of the facts mentioned.We have both talked about it, with references to back it up and I know the same thing has been said by others to you.


I believe they are screened every day. I imagine the resources needed for testing everyone every day might be problematic. The rapid kits are already in such short supply in places that people with symptoms are even discouraged (stay home and watch for symptoms) from trying to get them unless they are in an at risk group and it's more important to know.
Yes, just as it has been demonstrated that the vaccinated are less likely to pass it on (infectious for a shorter period) and if they do pass it on, it's been shown that it's a lighter load.

The issue is that an unvaccinated person who gets covid is infectious for longer and likely to pass on a higher covid load, than a vaccinated person who gets covid. There, that's twice.

If you're treated by an unvaccinated person the chances of getting covid from them are, thus, higher than being treated by a vaccinated person.

If the hospitals are performing the tests you have referred to, I'd suggest that there is an equal chance of a patient being infected with a healthcare worker from either group as, on that particular day, either group may be infected and may be able to pass it on.

BristolUK Feb 7th 2022 9:57 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13093151)
If the hospitals are performing the tests you have referred to,

Can I suggest you go back and read what I said again, particularly the part where I said "I believe they are screened every day. I imagine the resources needed for testing everyone every day might be problematic. The rapid kits are already in such short supply in places that people with symptoms are even discouraged (stay home and watch for symptoms) from trying to get them unless they are in an at risk group and it's more important to know."
How on earth do you take from that a suggestion that the hospitals are performing the tests?

I'd suggest that there is an equal chance of a patient being infected with a healthcare worker from either group as, on that particular day, either group may be infected and may be able to pass it on.
Of course you would. The mystery is why.
It's known that an unvaccinated person is more likely to suffer from the virus; is more likely infectious for a longer period (while possibly asymptomatic and on duty) and is more likely to pass on a higher covid load, all of which is worse for the person/patient they are in contact with.
Therefore a group of unvaccinated health workers is a greater risk to their colleagues and patients than a group of vaccinated. The mystery is how an intelligent person is unable to see that.

The patient may get covid from either someone in the vaccinated group or someone in the unvaccinated group. It's not an equal chance.

printer Feb 8th 2022 12:54 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 13093122)
It does matter. Maybe the triple vaccinated patient is 80+, or has an underlaying health condition, or due to an health condition cannot be vaccinated. Even though they are vaccinated they could still get very ill, or worse, from Covid. Anyone who is vaccinated can still get the virus, but more importantly they can pass it on.

But this whole debate is difficult to comprehend if we are comparing say Canada to UK. Having vaccinated staff only in any hospital or care setting is favourable to unvaccinated according to the research and we want to ensure that patients are being given best safe care so currently here in Canada we are committed to only using fully vaxxed staff regardless of staffing numbers. Our health system is struggling due to high numbers being forced to sit at home sick while isolating and others being removed from the workplace so are the staff shortages affecting the care of patients and leading to cancelled surgeries and other procedures? And if that is so is it any better than having unvaccinated staff still in the workplace even if their duties are altered somewhat to try and reduce patient/nurse contact. Meanwhile in UK this is exactly what they decided when shelving the vax mandate as they couldn't let the system collapse due to staffing shortages. Better to have as many hands on deck as possible during this recent rapid spreading strain seems to be their stance. Which one is right?

Almost Canadian Feb 8th 2022 1:42 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13093236)
Can I suggest you go back and read what I said again, particularly the part where I said "I believe they are screened every day. I imagine the resources needed for testing everyone every day might be problematic. The rapid kits are already in such short supply in places that people with symptoms are even discouraged (stay home and watch for symptoms) from trying to get them unless they are in an at risk group and it's more important to know."
How on earth do you take from that a suggestion that the hospitals are performing the tests?

I didn't. Again, if you do what you have recommended that I do and re-read what I stated, I said that I could only assume that they did as, to not do so would, IMVHO, be negligent.


Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13093236)
Of course you would. The mystery is why.
It's known that an unvaccinated person is more likely to suffer from the virus; is more likely infectious for a longer period (while possibly asymptomatic and on duty) and is more likely to pass on a higher covid load, all of which is worse for the person/patient they are in contact with.
Therefore a group of unvaccinated health workers is a greater risk to their colleagues and patients than a group of vaccinated. The mystery is how an intelligent person is unable to see that.

The patient may get covid from either someone in the vaccinated group or someone in the unvaccinated group. It's not an equal chance.

Not if you understand how things work in reality. On any particular day, any healthcare worker, vaccinated or unvaccinated, could be infected and could be able to transmit the virus. That is a fact. Their ability to do so would depend upon how they behave outside of work (vaccinated one that goes out all the time, attends hockey games, attends concerts, mixes with friends, etc. versus an unvaccinated one that lives on an acreage alone, buys groceries from a store using kerbside pickup and ensures that everything they collect is sanitized prior to using it). By using your simplistic stance, the vaccinated one is less likely to be able to transmit to a patient which, I am sure even you will admit, is unlikely to be the case. That is why, as I have stated before, you cannot treat both groups as A and B as there are far too many variables.

The above is before you take any account of the fact that some of them may be unvaccinated, have had the virus and have made a full recovery which means that they have better, and longer lasting, protection than the those that have just been vaccinated.

Danny B Feb 8th 2022 4:33 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Truckers will love this

Premier Scott Moe of Saskatchewan announces proof of vaccine requirements will be dropped in that province midnight Sunday.

BristolUK Feb 9th 2022 12:23 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13093393)
I didn't. Again, if you do what you have recommended that I do and re-read what I stated, I said that I could only assume that they did as, to not do so would, IMVHO, be negligent.

And when I suggested they may not do the tests for the reasons I gave (and did SCREENING instead) you responded with "If the hospitals are performing the tests you have referred to..." when it's pretty obvious I was saying they were not.

Not if you understand how things work in reality. On any particular day, any healthcare worker, vaccinated or unvaccinated, could be infected and could be able to transmit the virus. That is a fact.
And that was adequately covered when I said "The patient may get covid from either someone in the vaccinated group or someone in the unvaccinated group."
What you're not grasping, and this is the puzzle, is that for the reasons stated several times now, while unvaccinated and vaccinated may get the virus and pass it on, the unvaccinated are more likely to pass it on (being infectious for longer periods so more likely to be on duty while infectious) and more likely to pass on a higher load (which makes the recipient more likely to suffer from getting a higher load). That means there is a greater likelihood of getting the virus from the unvaccinated than the vaccinated.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:34 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.