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?
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.

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?

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.

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.

Truckers will love this

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.
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.

Some unvaccinated are more likely to become infected and transmit it. Those that are unvaccinated, have had the virus and have recovered, are in a very similar position to those that have had 2 shots. So, once again, classing the two groups as different is not entirely accurate.

I'd also respectfully suggest that you are confusing two separate issues. If I toss a coin and get 6 heads in a row, the law of averages states that I am more likely to throw a tail on my next turn. However, the actual chances of me throwing a head or a tail are exactly equal.

In any event, I believe that this particular debate has run its course.

Oh look, there go those goalposts on the move again.

This is a good example. “Law of averages” is make-belief maths; a nonsensical belief some people hold because someone just as ignorant said so and they want to believe it. This belief has no basis in statistics. Very similar to claims that vaccination during Covid pandemic is not necessary and impinges on “freedoms”.

WTF ?! What law is that ???

Poor old Charlie gone and got the corona for a second time!

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-ch...-says-12538176

At his age it's probably quite a concern though.

Would be a nightmare if he croaked, especially after his bird's queens consort announcement.

Buck House neither confirming or denying that her Maj has caught Covid from Charles...

Bristol appears to want to group everyone in the unvaccinated group together. I wish to point out that everyone in that group cannot be treated equally, for the reasons outlined above. Treating them as a group, for the purposes of the discussion we were having, is irrelevant as the risk they each, individually, pose to the patients is dependent upon their individual circumstances. I was simply attempting to illustrate the point.

In any event, as such discussions are looking increasingly moot as jurisdictions across the world appear to wish to return to normal and allow everyone to take the risk they, the individuals, wish to.

LOL. His bird.