In some ways the Covid vaccine landscape reflects great progress: Millions of holdouts have decided to get vaccinated over the past couple months, many prodded at the last minute by mandates or anxiety over the highly transmissible Delta variant. (Three unvaccinated people who showed up for shots in Franklin the other morning came because each knew someone who had recently died from Covid.) The decline of new cases recently in many states is another marker of the success of the vaccine campaigns, public health officials say.
But millions of adults are not covered by mandates. Experts in vaccine behavior fear that the country is bumping up against the ceiling of persuadable people, one that is significantly lower than the threshold needed for broad immunity from Delta and, possibly, future variants. (...)
About 56 percent of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, a level that exceeds some early estimates about what it could take to achieve so-called herd immunity against the coronavirus. That percentage will surely rise once the shots are authorized for children under 12. But Delta is so contagious that experts have revised their optimum coverage estimates to 90 percent or higher.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundationâs vaccine surveys, those who say they will never get the vaccine â the âdefinitely notsâ â have held steady for months between 15 and 12 percent of respondents. The rising vaccination rates of late reflect the steady shrinking of a different group â those who say they had been waiting to decide and could be convinced. They now total just 7 percent, down from 39 percent in December.
Meet journalist Laura Ingraham. She is so smart, she does not smoke pot. Beautiful, compassionate, this intelligent woman not only excels at risk management, she cares deeply about her fellow Americans.
Ingraham concluded that this sounded like "a classic case of discrimination." "I don't know if people are smoking too much pot in Colorado, or what's going on," Ingraham said.
Much thanks and hearty applause for the gentleman from Wyoming.
Kurt, people here are willing to engage with others holding different views provided those views are reasonable and substantive. Trolls get abused and ignored.
SFW's right. You love to play the Righteous Victim. If you'd simply explained why you found the story noteworthy—apparently because it shows how religious beliefs can collide with health care practices and public policy—you might have generated some good discussion.
Instead, you have quickly ratcheted up this piece into Chapter 37 about how you're all alone here and everyone abuses you.
Stick to the subject and stop lugging that giant cross around.
As the primary Trump supporter here, I have no credibility. All's I get is disrespect, contempt, hate, and worse. For years. And that is not just me, it's what any Trump supporter gets here, no exceptions.
Everyone here does their level best to drive them away from here. There is no tolerance here for anyone who supports Trump.
Tell me that is not true.
No one here tries to drive "anyone who supports Trump" away, but neither is anyone obligated to go "oh, hmm, well that's an interesting perspective" when it's 100% loon. I get called on my deep thoughts somewhat frequently, it seems to me, and sometimes I do in fact change my outlook based on that feedback. If others leave because they're constantly having their values challenged, then yeah they might feel like they've been driven away. :shrug:
But the point is: you want credibility, show some common ground. You were handed the opportunity on a silver platter with lace doilies and refused it. So don't boo hoo about no one giving you credibility/the benefit of the doubt.
As the primary Trump supporter here, I have no credibility. All's I get is disrespect, contempt, hate, and worse. For years. And that is not just me, it's what any Trump supporter gets here, no exceptions.
Everyone here does their level best to drive them away from here. There is no tolerance here for anyone who supports Trump.
As the primary Trump supporter here, I have no credibility. All's I get is disrespect, contempt, hate, and worse. For years. And that is not just me, it's what any Trump supporter gets here, no exceptions.
Everyone here does their level best to drive them away from here. There is no tolerance here for anyone who supports Trump.
Tell me that is not true.
Supporting Trump pre-election was one thing, but continuing to do so since then is quite another, no?
Really, why would/does the GOP continue to puts itself behind this guy? They really can't come up with anyone better (yeah, I know the dems have biden...but still).
You cheat yourself some credibility when you do this:
And you wonder why no one cuts you any slack.
As the primary Trump supporter here, I have no credibility. All's I get is disrespect, contempt, hate, and worse. For years. And that is not just me, it's what any Trump supporter gets here, no exceptions.
Everyone here does their level best to drive them away from here. There is no tolerance here for anyone who supports Trump.
That was the inference I took based upon your interactions with me.
And exactly right, you presume a nefarious innuendo by me, same as always.
The way you approach everything I post seems to be purely to slander or attack me and for no other reason. You drag up old stuff from many years ago and then repeatedly accuse me of untoward professional behaviour over and over again by suggesting that my behaviour and activities put the people I encounter while working deliberately at risk as if I am some kind of Mr Hyde.
I didn't presume inuendo, I speculated in absence of an answer to my question. Nothing slanderous or attacking in my asking why you thought it was worth mentioning. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
SFW got it right, I think.
But now that you have posted some clarification I owe you an apology, in the thread you quoted, when you said, "We should just refuse hospital admission to anyone who is unvaccinated. That would make things fair and real simple", I thought you were being sarcastic. I think that's overly extreme, but I should have taken you at face value.
You cheat yourself some credibility when you do this: Post a link which you, accurately I think, stands on its own. But we don't know if you're using it (as you often do) to illustrate the World Gone Wrong⢠or if you support the decision. So haresfur asked you, and you decline to answer. So, still not knowing where you stand, it turns into a Minor Skirmish® again. I can't wade through the quotes of quotes with #sarc and double-negative sniping and be totally certain, but I think you agree that the hospital has made the right decision. I think about 2/3 of us also agree. So you cheat yourself: here's something you and Schlabby can probably agree on, but you evade and obfuscate rather than just post the link and say "I agree with this" or when asked, say "I agree with the hospital." Now I'm left to wonder if it's you who can't bring yourself to admit that you share some common ground with (checks who-all you got sideways with on this ManbirdX iSlander R_P Hair'sfur westslope probably more)
Why don't you tell me why it should not be mentioned.
I never said it shouldn't be mentioned.
You said it was worth mentioning but are refusing to explain why you think so.
I can only guess that there is some sort of innuendo you are trying to put out here.
Weird how you can never give a straight answer to a question.
That was the inference I took based upon your interactions with me.
And exactly right, you presume a nefarious innuendo by me, same as always.
The way you approach everything I post seems to be purely to slander or attack me and for no other reason. You drag up old stuff from many years ago and then repeatedly accuse me of untoward professional behaviour over and over again by suggesting that my behaviour and activities put the people I encounter while working deliberately at risk as if I am some kind of Mr Hyde.
But definitely worth mentioning to the extent that it illustrates the significant cost of not getting a vaccine.
It is also an interesting reminder that many Americans do their best to live in the Dark Ages.
Old news was being sarcastic. But enough time had passed and based on many people's news sources, very unlikely to have been encountered.
I thought that the story had enough obvious merit to stand on its own as to the direction we are going.
Yet, I brought up this possibility of sorts back on October 4th and the referenced story is the manifestation of my thought back then. That is why I thought it was worth mentioning now. Nothing snide, sly or nefarious in mind.
The chain from October 4th earlier in this thread.
Steely_D wrote:
kurtster wrote:
Red_Dragon wrote:
Manbird wrote:
The unvaccinated (by choice) should never, ever take the final bed.
agreed
We should just refuse hospital admission to anyone who is unvaccinated. That would make things fair and real simple.
Yes. People don't understand the real meaning of "triage." You see it in war films, where the medic skips over the person who is certainly going to die or use up all the resources, moving on to help the ones who are more likely to survive.
So does this answer everyone's questions as to why it is worth mentioning ?
Why don't you tell me why it should not be mentioned.
I never said it shouldn't be mentioned. You said it was worth mentioning but are refusing to explain why you think so. I can only guess that there is some sort of innuendo you are trying to put out here.
Weird how you can never give a straight answer to a question.
Why don't you tell me why it should not be mentioned.
Kurt, you did state that the news piece was worth mentioning. You did so before anyone else made a judgment on the worth of the story and its relevance to the thread. So as first mover of this story you ought to explain your thinking before anyone else.
I just read the story and I'm not fully clear as to why the woman did not want to get vaccinated. I wonder if she knows how widely cells created from fetal tissue are used in medical R&D.
Lutali, 56, said she could not agree to be vaccinated because of the role that fetal cell lines played in some vaccine development. Several types of cell lines created decades ago using fetal tissue are widely used in manufacturing or testing of medical products, though the cells used today are clones of the early cells, not the original tissue.
âAs a Christian, I can't support anything that has to do with abortion of babies, and the sanctity of life for me is precious,â she said.
The article doesn't make it clear whether the Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson and Johnson vaccines were developed with the direct or indirect use of fetal tissue. Some Catholic leaders in the US object to the J&J vaccine although it's not clear why they object. The Vatican doesn't object to vaccines developed with the use of cells derived from aborted fetuses.
Roman Catholic leaders in New Orleans and St. Louis went so far as to call Johnson & Johnsonâs COVID-19 shot âmorally compromised.â J&J has stressed that there is no fetal tissue in its vaccine.
Moreover, the Vaticanâs doctrine office has said it is âmorally acceptableâ for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines that are based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Pope Francis himself has said it would be âsuicideâ not to get the shot, and he has been fully vaccinated with the Pfizer formula.
The hospital has good reason to require pre-operation vaccination.
UCHealth requires transplant recipients to be vaccinated because recipients are at significant risk of contracting COVID-19 as well as being hospitalized and dying from the virus, spokesman Dan Weaver said. Unvaccinated donors could also pass COVID-19 to the recipient even if they initially test negative for the disease, he said.
âStudies have found transplant patients who contract COVID-19 may have a mortality rate of 20% or higher," he said.
...
While any type of surgery may stress a patientâs immune system and leave them vulnerable to contracting COVID-19 later, organ transplants recipients are even more at risk because they have to take a powerful regime of drugs to suppress their immune system to keep their body from rejecting the new organ, which is seen by the body as a foreign object, Nancy Foster, AHAâs vice president for quality and patient safety policy said in a statement.
âFurther, if patients were to wait to get their vaccine until after the surgery, it is unlikely that their immune system could mount the desired antibody reaction given that they are taking anti-rejection medications,â she said.
The woman has a right to make a choice between getting the vaccine for a transplant and dying. Maybe she'll be able to find another hospital that won't require a vaccination. According to the story, though, a lot of major hospitals are requiring Covid vaccination before a transplant operation.
Mine's fine. And how is your's doing ? Having problems with mold in the marine environment or do you go through it fast enough so mold is not a problem ?
