Florida health care can now be denied based on moral, ethical, religious beliefs.

[probinson]

Nice to get back on track rather than have this thread become a throwback to the anti-vax 'debates' from a year or so back.

What "debate"? You've ignored every shred of empirical data and study I've posted.

Too right it's an expectation. It's always good to ask an expert in your particular case what's best for you. And always a good idea to listen to the advice you receive.

But what if they're wrong? What if the available data calls into question their advice? Should you still listen? And what if you get conflicting opinions from two different "experts"? Which one do you listen to?

Your willingness to cede to someone's opinion based solely on their credentials is incredibly foolish. Everyone must prove their contentions. They don't get a pass because of their title.

Otherwise it's something of a waste of time asking. In the woman's case, it's not just a waste of time. Ignoring the advice will kill her.

No, but refusing a transplant will probably kill her.

I think that tells us what we need to know. As if it wasn't crystal clear a long time back in this thread.

Ditto man. Ditto.

 

[Bradskii]

What "debate"? You've ignored every shred of empirical data and study I've posted.

Maybe you could save yourself some time and not post them. But, hey. One more time. Show me that graph with the red line. I like that one.

But what if they're wrong? What if the available data calls into question their advice? Should you still listen? And what if you get conflicting opinions from two different "experts"?

I didn't know she'd asked for a second opinion from someone who was expert in her specific case. Could you post a link?

 

[probinson]

Maybe you could save yourself some time and not post them. But, hey. One more time. Show me that graph with the red line. I like that one.

Oh no, I'll keep posting them. I know you'll continue to ignore them, but there are others that appreciate an evidence-based approach to discussion.

But since you asked so nicely, here it is again. Anyone that believes that this is what would have happened in the US without vaccination is, IMHO, a gullible yutz.

I didn't know she'd asked for a second opinion from someone who was expert in her specific case. Could you post a link?

I have no idea what this woman did or did not do. I'm asking you a question. How do you decide what to do when two "experts" offer conflicting advice? How do you decide which one to heed? I suspect if you answer that question honestly, you might begin to understand what I've been trying to say all along.

 

[Bradskii]

I have no idea what this woman did or did not do. I'm asking you a question. How do you decide what to do when two "experts" offer conflicting advice? I suspect if you answer that question honestly, you might begin to understand what I've been trying to say all along.

We're talking about this case and you have said she should ask for advice from experts. I think you've made a valid point.

I can start listing all the experts who agree with the doctor in her case if you like. There's plenty of experts in these type of ops who were called on by various news organisations to help explain the problem. Whether she asked them or not I don't know either. My guess is that she didn't. But we can listen to what they say.

And what would your recommendation be if they all agreed with her doc?

 

[probinson]

We're talking about this case

No, you are. You seem completely enamored by this woman. I have no idea why.

So can I safely assume you're not going to answer the (very simple) question of how you would decide what advice you would follow if you got conflicting advice from two different "experts"?

 

[Bradskii]

And here's some to start with. let me know how many we need before we make a decision.

Former Deputy Chief Health Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth:
He remained adamant the biggest risk to a patient is getting Covid-19 without being vaccinated, which could result in death and the loss of the transplanted organ.

“From a transplant physicians point of view… the biggest risk to you when we hit your immune system like that if you get Covid-19 without having the vaccine, then there‘s a really significant risk that you’ll die and that organ will die with you,”

British Transplant Association: https://transplant.org.au/wp-conten...ficacy-30th-June-2021-FINAL-FINAL-BRANDED.pdf
Of approximately 6700 transplant recipients who had not received even one vaccine dose, 7% (466) contracted COVID-19. Of these, 40% (189) died within 28 days of a positive COVID test. • Of approximately 39,000 transplant recipients who had received both vaccine doses, less than 1% (76) contracted COVID-19 two weeks or more after second vaccine dose.

COVID-19 Vaccination for Transplant Candidates - Brigham and Women's Hospital

www.brighamandwomens.org

Research has shown that transplant recipients are at a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 when compared to non-transplant patients. Transplant recipients must take immunosuppressive medications after receiving a transplanted organ. This means that after a transplant, recipients will develop less of an antibody response to a vaccine and are especially vulnerable to severe illness if they contract the virus.

For this reason, experts recommend COVID-19 vaccination before organ transplantation to lower the chance of severe disease and death if a recipient becomes infected.

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/queensland-health-confirms-organ-transplant-recipients-need-to-be-vaccinated-for-covid-c-4830704:

“A recipient is highly immunosuppressed post-transplant, which is why it’s incredibly important for the person to be vaccinated prior to transplant. Queensland Health prioritises safety before, during and after a transplant.

“That is why the Queensland Kidney Transplant Service has endorsed a minimum requirement of two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine prior to receiving a kidney, lung or heart transplant.

“Prior to transplant and as per normal process, the recipient must ensure all of their vaccinations are up to date.

“The COVID-19 vaccination is no different.”

Unvaccinated ‘not a priority’ for organ transplants: AMA

WA’s peak medical association has warned unvaccinated people in the State who are needing a life-saving organ transplant will not be a priority on the waiting list.

thewest.com.au

WA’s peak medical association has warned that unvaccinated people in the State who are needing a life-saving organ transplant will not be a priority on the waiting list.

Australian Medical Association WA president Dr Mark Duncan-Smith told The West Australian organs would be “wasted” on patients not protected against COVID-19.

 

[Bradskii]

No, you are. You seem completely enamored by this woman. I have no idea why.

So can I safely assume you're not going to answer the (very simple) question of how you would decide what advice you would follow if you got conflicting advice from two different "experts"?

We ask experts and see if there's a consensus. See above. How many opinions on transplants do you think we need?

 

[Bradskii]

No, you are. You seem completely enamored by this woman. I have no idea why.

We've been discussing her since post 39.

 

[probinson]

We ask experts and see if there's a consensus.

So you think consensus is how to make decisions. Not surprising.

Are you aware of just how many "consensus" opinions have been proven wrong over the years? Did you read about Vioxx when I posted it earlier? The consensus was it was better than other medications. But in reality, it was literally killing people.

Perhaps "consensus" isn't the best answer. What could it be...

 

[probinson]

We've been discussing her since post 39.

Because you keep steering the conversation back to her.

 

[Bradskii]

So you think consensus is how to make decisions. Not surprising.

Hey, you are the one that said she should get more opinions. So what if she did and they all said the same thing? That's what is called a consensus. So if she used her Google expertise and took examples from the first couple of pages listed showing requirements for vaccines for transplant patients just like I did, then she'd see there was...what was it again? Ah yeah. A consensus.

So now we've done that, what is your recommendation? C'mon...the woman is dying. What do we do now?

 

[probinson]

Since you are obviously enamored with this woman's case, I'm going to address your first link. The data they present says this.

Between 8th Dec 2020 – 24th of June 2021:​

​

Let's start here. December 8, 2020 - June 24 2021 was a very different time for COVID infections. Literally no one was vaccinated in December 2020 and the virus was more deadly at that time. Things are quite different now in 2023 with widespread natural immunity and vaccinated immunity.

• Of approximately 6700 transplant recipients who had not received even one vaccine dose, 7% (466) contracted COVID-19. Of these, 40% (189) died within 28 days of a positive COVID test.

This represents an absolute risk percentage of 2.8% (189/6700). To put that another way, 6,511 people who received transplants without COVID vaccination did NOT die due to COVID.

Also, note that this doesn't even say the patient died from COVID. The criteria was simply a death within 28 days of a positive test.

I would also be curious to see if other confounders were accounted for. This paper makes no mention of the demographics of the sample size. Were elderly transplant patients more likely to die than younger transplant patients? Who knows. The paper doesn't say. Is it possible that other things factored into these deaths? Sure it is.

• Of approximately 39,000 transplant recipients who had received both vaccine doses, less than 1% (76) contracted COVID-19 two weeks or more after second vaccine dose. Of these 8% (6) died within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test.

This represents an absolute risk percentage of 0.015% (6/39,000). Which means that this observational data shows that there is an absolute risk reduction of just 2.785% for those who are vaccinated. Not exactly an iron-clad guarantee.

This is why we have informed consent. We tell people, we have observational data that would suggest that you can reduce your absolute risk of death after a positive COVID test (not even sure if COVID was the cause) by around 2.7% if you get vaccinated. We show them the data. Then they can decide.

It would be far better if there were some actual RCTs to show these risk reductions rather than observational data that is hopelessly confounded.

 

[probinson]

Hey, you are the one that said she should get more opinions.

Why do you keep pretending I said things that I never said?

So what if she did and they all said the same thing? That's what is called a consensus. So if she used her Google expertise and took examples from the first couple of pages listed showing requirements for vaccines for transplant patients just like I did, then she'd see there was...what was it again? Ah yeah. A consensus.

So now we've done that, what is your recommendation? C'mon...the woman is dying. What do we do now?

So you're just going to ignore all the times medical consensus was wrong?

 

[Pommer]

It seems that the American Medical Association was leery of such regulations/laws 14 years ago when the Bush (II) Administration tried to foist such a “protection of conscience” rule into the federal system and most probably still are, though in 2019 (at least two) federal courts blocked a proposed 2019 rule that sought to allow healthcare providers access to exemptions regarding a provider’s “conscience”.

In a win for physicians and their patients, a federal court blocked a Trump Administration-backed conscience rights rule the AMA and other medical associations opposed in an amicus brief because the change would “radically disrupt medical care and endanger the health and lives of patients.”

 

[Bradskii]

Why do you keep pretending I said things that I never said?

You said we should look for more opinions:

'And what if you get conflicting opinions from two different "experts"?'

Looking for opinions from two different people is looking for more opinions. One more than we started with. Which was one from an expert in her particular case, but let's get some more. From experts in that field. And why stop at one? The more we get, the more convinced we can be that the opinions are correct. Assuming that they agree. So I did that. Quite quickly over a couple of pages in Google, which took me longer to cut and paste than it did to find them. And we have a....keep forgetting that term...consensus. They all agree.

Did you see them?

...the biggest risk to a patient is getting Covid-19 without being vaccinated.
...really significant risk that you’ll die.
....recipients who had not received even one vaccine dose, 7% (466) contracted COVID-19. Of these, 40% (189) died within 28 days of a positive COVID test.
...transplant recipients are at a higher risk of dying from COVID-19.
...lower the chance of severe disease and death.
...it’s incredibly important for the person to be vaccinated.

So you said we should get at least another opinion and ask what we do if they disagree. So I got half a dozen and they all agreed. So, what should we do now?

So you're just going to ignore all the times medical consensus was wrong?

Yeah. Because we're talking about one specific case. A heart transplant. And we're doing what you suggested. Getting more opinions on vaccines as they relate to transplants. Now that we have that input, from multiple sources, again...what do we do with that information? Do we need more? How many more would we need? Do we act on it? Do we now ignore it, now we've discovered what we need to know? What would the reason be to ignore it?

 

[Bradskii]

Which means that this observational data shows that there is an absolute risk reduction of just 2.785% for those who are vaccinated. Not exactly an iron-clad guarantee.

If you'd continued with the report, you'd see that those who were vaccinated had a 0.08% chance of dying from Covid. So if someone says that having a vaccine prior to a transplant will reduce your chances of dying by a factor of 35, what do you think a reasonable person would say?

 

[Gene2memE]

But since you asked so nicely, here it is again. Anyone that believes that this is what would have happened in the US without vaccination is, IMHO, a gullible yutz.

View attachment 331854

There's no such thing as 'the model' for COVID-19 deaths, and certainly nothing like what is represented in that graphic.

There were multiple COVID-19 models, attempting to estimate multiple variables, with multiple upper and lower boundaries. The CDC took an ensemble forecasting approach, using, IIRC several dozen independent forecasters. Forecasts were updated weekly.

Here's how the CDC conducted its modelling:

The United States COVID-19 Forecast Hub dataset - Scientific Data

Academic researchers, government agencies, industry groups, and individuals have produced forecasts at an unprecedented scale during the COVID-19 pandemic. To leverage these forecasts, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partnered with an academic research lab at...

www.nature.com

And here's the CDC's COVID-19 forecasts for 2021:

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

Anyone that believes 'the model' of COVID-19 deaths in the US was a simple linear progression is, IMHO, a gullible yutz.

 

[probinson]

There's no such thing as 'the model' for COVID-19 deaths, and certainly nothing like what is represented in that graphic.

The computer model in question says that 3.2 million lives were saved in the US, and that is likely a "conservative estimate".

To determine exactly how much the shots have helped, researchers created a computer model of disease transmission that incorporated demographic information, people’s risk factors, the dynamics of infection and general information about vaccination. The research comes from the Commonwealth Fund and Yale School of Public Health. ​

​

Their study, published Tuesday, found that without Covid-19 vaccines, the nation would have had 1.5 times more infections, 3.8 times more hospitalizations and 4.1 times more deaths than it did between December 2020 and November 2022.​

​

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/health/covid-19-vaccines-study/index.html

​

So what does 4.1 times more deaths between December 2020 and November 2022 look like on a chart? I'm glad you asked.

There were multiple COVID-19 models, attempting to estimate multiple variables, with multiple upper and lower boundaries.

Yes. They were almost all dreadfully, horribly wrong.

Anyone that believes 'the model' of COVID-19 deaths in the US was a simple linear progression is, IMHO, a gullible yutz.

Of course it wouldn't have been a simple linear progression. But the endpoint value is what the computer model said would have happened without vaccination. So if it were shown not as a linear progression, there would be a squiggly line like the actual deaths data. That would mean that there would be portions of that line where the increases would be even MORE precipitous than I'm showing with the linear progression. Feel free to show what would have happened without vaccines if you think my chart is inaccurate.

People like to say MILLIONS (!) of lives were saved by the vaccines because it sounds really good. But when you look at what actually happened vs. what the model predicts what would have happened without vaccines, it's absolutely ludicrous.

 

[probinson]

Did you see them?

I did. In fact, I responded to one in great detail, which of course you once again completely ignored.

 

[probinson]

If you'd continued with the report, you'd see that those who were vaccinated had a 0.08% chance of dying from Covid. So if someone says that having a vaccine prior to a transplant will reduce your chances of dying by a factor of 35, what do you think a reasonable person would say?

A reasonable person would say, stop citing relative reduction while ignoring absolute reduction to try to make this seem like it's more beneficial than it is. A reasonable person would ask if confounders were accounted for in the observational data. Were there other factors and commonalities amongst those who died in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups? What was the age of those in either group that died? How many comorbidities were observed in those who died? How similar am I in demographic and medical history to those who died? Did those who died have COVID previously and recover? There are a lot of very valid questions that could and should be asked.

But let's explore your assertion that a relative change by a factor of 35 is significant by using a hypothetical example.

If you buy 35 lottery tickets instead of 1, you have increased your chances of winning the lottery by a factor of 35. Let's pretend in this particular lottery with each ticket you buy, your odds of winning are 1 in a million. So you increase your odds to 35 in a million with 35 tickets. Therefore your odds of winning increase by a factor of 35, from .0001% to .0035%.

Do you think that's significant?