More than 150 Houston hospital workers fired or quit after refusing COVID-19 vaccine

[Aldebaran]

Anybody else wanna handle this hanging curveball?

Aren't you able?

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Aren't you able?

I think I may be able to explain this.

Some pro-vaxx forum members have been very resistant to the hypothesis that the vaccines may be causing adverse effects in people. And they've been employing logical fallacies such as ad-hominem, strawman, and genetic to try and discredit any forum members and sources that urge caution, and pausing of vaccination while proper investigation of all the adverse effects logged on Yellow Card (UK logs) and VAERS (US logs) is done.

Yesterday, the pro-vaxx CDC said that there is likely a link between the vaccines and heart inflammation adverse effects, and the pro-vaxx mainstream media reported this. I posted this information in another thread, and the pro-vaxxers haven't yet responded, despite being very active on this thread. I guess it gets rather awkward and embarrassing when even the pro-vaxx CDC and the pro-vaxx mainstream media start saying there's likely a link between adverse effects and vaccinations.

I'm waiting to see how the UK government respond, and if they will look for an excuse to wind down vaccinations. Roll out of the covid vaccines in the UK has been done in strict order of age and vulnerability, so it's taken months to start offering vaccines to those most at risk of heart inflammation (young men). If the UK government continue with the current vaccine roll out programme, it's almost inevitable that the same heart inflammation will be seen in the UK (it's most commonly seen after the second dose, so if vaccinations are halted now, the UK government can still avoid this).

Anyway, that's just the background, so back to the topic at hand. If the CDC and their mainstream media cheerleaders are now accepting that covid vaccines are likely the direct cause of heart inflammation, how likely is it that they will eventually announce that the vaccines are the direct cause of other adverse effects, including death? And as there is now an admission that the vaccines likely cause heart inflammation, where does that leave US employers who coerced people to take the covid vaccines by firing employees that refused?

Here in the UK, the government has repeatedly suggested that certain types of workers will be forced to take covid vaccines, but they haven't yet created the relevant legislation. I have been wondering if the government knows that any such legislation would be ruled unlawful, and so they are trying to persuade people into voluntarily getting vaccinated, by incorrectly suggesting that if they don't get vaccinated now, they will be forced to do so at a later date. Faced with such a threat, many workers may just capitulate, and decide to take the vaccine, even though they don't want to.

 

[expos4ever]

You can't really blame people for not wanting to take a covid vaccine. I certainly wouldn't.

View attachment 301247

Covid Statistics Death

All righty then, let's discuss this graph of yours. Here is what the VAERS really means, something you are, of course, motivated to hide:

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Now here is something else you hide: What else, besides adverse events following vaccination, has increased as of 2020?

Answer: vaccinations, of course.

This is what you are hiding: given that there has been a sudden surge of vaccinations as of 2020, it would be, of course, entirely expected that adverse events "following a vaccination" even if the vaccine were entirely safe.

The graph misleads.

 

[expos4ever]

Some pro-vaxx forum members have been very resistant to the hypothesis that the vaccines may be causing adverse effects in people

No. We simply point out falsehoods and unsupported claims.

And they've been employing logical fallacies such as ad-hominem, strawman, and genetic to try and discredit any forum members and sources...

I challenge you to provide evidence to support your accusations - which posts have demonstrated strawman? Which posts have demonstrated genetic fallacy?

Let me remind readers how people here abuse the notion of the genetic fallacy. If you had provided your own argument and we had attacked your credibility and evaded dealing with that argument, then we would be indeed guilty.

But you guys usually appeal to some "expert" as the basis of your claim.

In that scenario, we have every right to challenge the credibility of that source.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

I guarantee you will not be able to draw a credible causal connection between the vaccine and anything other than a miniscule number of deaths.

Thought this graphic from a post above might be helpful.

 

[expos4ever]

Yesterday, the pro-vaxx CDC said that there is likely a link between the vaccines and heart inflammation adverse effects, and the pro-vaxx mainstream media reported this.

So what? This is not news. What, again, you artfully conceal is the very small magnitude of the risk and, especially, how this risk pales in comparison with the risk posed by Covid.

 

[expos4ever]

Thought this graphic from a post above might be helpful.

How does this graph support any concern about the vaccines?

 

[expos4ever]

Anyway, that's just the background, so back to the topic at hand. If the CDC and their mainstream media cheerleaders are now accepting that covid vaccines are likely the direct cause of heart inflammation, how likely is it that they will eventually announce that the vaccines are the direct cause of other adverse effects, including death?

Speculation based on faulty logic.

Your argument has this form:

1. It has been determined that the vaccine produced (caused) medical condition X (X being heart inflammation).

2. Medical condition Y (e.g. death) has been observed after people get the vaccine.

3. Therefore, we can expect that it will be determined that the vaccine caused medical condition Y.

This is obviously not valid reasoning.

 

[expos4ever]

I have been wondering if the government knows that any such legislation would be ruled unlawful,...

How do you know this? Do you have the relevant legal qualifications to render such a judgement?

 

[Danthemailman]

CDC Finds More Cases of Heart Inflammation Than Expected in Vaccinated Young Males

 

[JustSomeBloke]

All righty then, let's discuss this graph of yours. Here is what the VAERS really means, something you are, of course, motivated to hide:

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Indeed, but as you should very well know by now, even the pro-vaxx CDC and pro-vaxx mainstream media are now reporting that there is likely a link between covid vaccines and heart inflammation. And there are very good reasons to believe that the current number and frequency of heart inflammation reports will rapidly increase if vaccinations continue (most heart inflammation cases occur after two doses, but most of those at risk, young men, have only received one dose so far).

Now here is something else you hide: What else, besides adverse events following vaccination, has increased as of 2020?

Answer: vaccinations, of course.

This is what you are hiding: given that there has been a sudden surge of vaccinations as of 2020, it would be, of course, entirely expected that adverse events "following a vaccination" even if the vaccine were entirely safe.

The graph misleads.

Not sure about the VAERS system, but here in the UK we have the Yellow Card system for reporting adverse effects. Reporting is totally voluntary for Yellow Card, that is to say, there is no official follow up of each vaccination to check for adverse effects. That means that every adverse effect is quite likely the tip of the iceberg, and that there are many more who suffered the same adverse effect, but did not report it to the Yellow Card system. Some people estimate that only 1-10% of adverse effects are ever reported to the Yellow Card system.

No. We simply point out falsehoods and unsupported claims.

Are you saying that the CDC are wrong when they say there is a likely link between the covid vaccines and heart inflammation in young males?

I challenge you to provide evidence to support your accusations - which posts have demonstrated strawman? Which posts have demonstrated genetic fallacy?

Let me remind readers how people here abuse the notion of the genetic fallacy. If you had provided your own argument and we had attacked your credibility and evaded dealing with that argument, then we would be indeed guilty.

But you guys usually appeal to some "expert" as the basis of your claim.

In that scenario, we have every right to challenge the credibility of that source.

Carry on challenging if you like. Now you're not only challenging numerous independent, non-government experts, who have been sounding the alarm for some time now, you're also challenging the official government experts, that is, the CDC.

So what? This is not news. What, again, you artfully conceal is the very small magnitude of the risk and, especially, how this risk pales in comparison with the risk posed by Covid.

Yes, and I've already explained why the numbers of cases are likely to rapidly increase if vaccinations continue (most heart inflammation cases occur are after two doses, but the young men most likely to be affected have mostly only received one dose so far).

Speculation based on faulty logic.

Your argument has this form:

1. It has been determined that the vaccine produced (caused) medical condition X (X being heart inflammation).

2. Medical condition Y (e.g. death) has been observed after people get the vaccine.

3. Therefore, we can expect that it will be determined that the vaccine caused medical condition Y.

This is obviously not valid reasoning.

Errrrrrr. I think you'll find that's the basic logic employed by the CDC, when they said covid vaccines were likely causing heart inflammation in young men. Of course there's other considerations too, such as whether the number of cases seen is greater than would be expected in healthy, unvaccinated people. But as the CDC has concluded there's a likely link, it's safe to assume that the number of cases in vaccinated young men significantly exceeds what is normally seen in unvaccinated young men. Seriously, these pro-vaxx arguments are now beginning to resemble the tobacco lobby of years ago, claiming that there was no link between smoking, lung cancer, and a host of other illnesses.



Simply claiming that the covid vaccines are safe for all, or that the risk/benefit is positive for all, has always been a highly dubious argument, and we're starting to see evidence that it is a dubious argument, in terms of heart inflammation in young men. The sensible, pragmatic, conservative approach now would be to halt vaccination, and establish which groups/ages have a favourable risk/benefit ratio for vaccination.

Furthermore, it's morally and ethically questionable to require young people to take a vaccine that may harm them, for a virus that is most probably no threat to them. And here in the UK, the average age of a covid fatality is greater than the average life expectancy, so it's very clear that the young are at very minimal risk.

 

[expos4ever]

Indeed, but as you should very well know by now, even the pro-vaxx CDC and pro-vaxx mainstream media are now reporting that there is likely a link between covid vaccines and heart inflammation.

Again, so what? We all know that vaccines have side effects. The relevant issue, which you intentionally conceal (by now, it cannot be anything other than deliberate misrepresentation) is how such risks stack up against the risks of not taking the vaccine.

And there are very good reasons to believe that the current number and frequency of heart inflammation reports will rapidly increase if vaccinations continue (most heart inflammation cases occur after two doses, but most of those at risk, young men, have only received one dose so far).

Again, so what? If you can provide evidence that this risk more than offsets the risk of getting equally hurt by not getting vaccinated, then, and only then, would you have a case.

Why are you not talking about the risks of heart problems that arise from Covid?

 

[expos4ever]

Carry on challenging if you like.

You posted this:

And they've been employing logical fallacies such as ad-hominem, strawman, and genetic to try and discredit any forum members and sources

Well? What posts show evidence of strawman or genetic?

Why aren't you answering this question? Why are you not supporting your own clear accusation?

We all know why - you have made this stuff up out of thin air.

 

[cow451]

Out of a staff of 25,000. So, it's less than 1%. But still.

At least 153 employees of a Houston hospital — including nurses and other medical staff — were fired or resigned Tuesday after refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19, one of the first mass terminations since vaccinations started in the U.S. this year, reinvigorating a national anti-vaccine movement.

The employees were given until midnight Tuesday to get vaccinated, and “very few” resigned or retired early to avoid vaccination, said Gale Smith, a hospital spokeswoman.

“Employees who did not meet the deadline were terminated effective today,” Smith said in a statement Tuesday. “The employees who became compliant during the suspension period returned to work the day after they became compliant.”

Of the hospital’s staff, 285 were granted medical or religious exemptions from the vaccine and 332 were allowed to defer it, Boom said, but most of the rest were vaccinated by the hospital’s deadline.

A Texas federal judge dismissed the employees’ case against the hospital earlier this month, rejecting their argument that the hospital was forcing them to take an experimental vaccine. (The case is being appealed.)

Having worked in hospitals, it is typical that employees get certain immunizations unles a CLEAR exception can be made based on science. A few foolish employees do not get to run the ship.

Would one make a "flat earther" the admiral of the fleet?

 

[cow451]

I admire anyone who has the guts to stand their ground in this world filled with man-pleasers.

A poster admires those that are unwilling to sail near the edge of the flat earth.

 

[expos4ever]

Now you're not only challenging numerous independent, non-government experts, who have been sounding the alarm for some time now, you're also challenging the official government experts, that is, the CDC.

Which experts? And which of these experts support stopping the vaccination campaign? And how many of these experts are there in relation to experts who promote carrying on with the vaccination campaign?

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, and I've already explained why the numbers of cases are likely to rapidly increase if vaccinations continue (most heart inflammation cases occur are after two doses, but the young men most likely to be affected have mostly only received one dose so far).

We all know this! How does it support your case?

I have little doubt that the rate of heart inflammation cases will increase. But you are acting as if this somehow supports your case.

You are misleading readers in at least the following ways:

(a) First, you very conveniently conceal the very likely possibility that, as time goes on, we will discover that there are further as-yet-unknown health implications of getting covid itself.

(b) Second, you appear to think that even though these heart inflammation cases make the argument for getting the vaccines weaker, the argument for the vaccine is still overwhelming.

 

[cow451]

I'm surprised we're not hearing from people on the Left complaining that all these health care workers who have been hailed as heroes not too long ago are now being fired from their jobs by a hospital system that obviously sees these workers as disposable.

Science is not static. These people served heroically then when no vaccine was available. Now several are available. Big diff.

If soldiers have been using muskets, then are given repeater rifles, do we really want the musket-bearers to continue with inadequate weaponry?

 

[expos4ever]

But as the CDC has concluded there's a likely link, it's safe to assume that the number of cases in vaccinated young men significantly exceeds what is normally seen in unvaccinated young men.

And exactly how this justify the wisdom of not proceeding with the vaccination program? And no cheating - no pretending that there is not another side to this coin - the risks posed by Covid.

You will not answer this question, of course. Because you cannot afford to without confessing that your position is manifestly untenable.

 

[cow451]

Aren't you able?

A poster has already hit several grand slams off you.