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

[cow451]

Thought this graphic from a post above might be helpful.

Got one for deaths PRE Covid vaccine?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

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

A poster makes a complete botch of an attempt at humor. And yet again, as I said above somewhere, I LOVE that so much can be wringed from my simple sentence.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

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.

Please accept my apologies, but I'm not going to respond to all your posts. Firstly, because I see no point in this thread becoming a rerun of the other thread. Secondly, because I'm getting bored of it. Lastly, because I think the risk/benefit information for vaccination is still emerging, and so the best course of action right now is to halt vaccination while all the adverse effects are properly evaluated.

However, it might be helpful to everyone if you answer the following questions:
1. Do you disagree that the risk/benefit ratio of the covid vaccines is most likely not equal across all groups and ages, and so the most logical and rational approach now is to halt vaccination while we evaluate adverse effects, and determine which groups and ages derive a favourable risk/benefit ratio from vaccination?

2. Do you disagree that it is morally and ethically questionable to request that young people take a vaccination that may harm them, and statistically may have an unfavourable risk/benefit ratio for people their age, in order to try and protect other people who are vulnerable due to age or some other infirmity?

Science is not static.

Indeed. But try telling that to the pro-vaxxers. They're not interested in progressing the knowledge on risk/benefit for different ages and groups. They just want to plough on ahead and vaccinate everyone.

Got one for deaths PRE Covid vaccine?

That would be everything to the left of the massive 2021 uptick (if you hadn't noticed, the x-axis on that chart is time in years).

 

[cow451]

A poster makes a complete botch of an attempt at humor. And yet again, as I said above somewhere, I LOVE that so much can be wringed from my simple sentence.

A poster mistakes foolish behavior for courage.

 

[cow451]

Please accept my apologies, but I'm not going to respond to all your posts. people who are vulnerable due to age or some other infirmity?

That would be everything to the left of the massive 2021 uptick (if you hadn't noticed, the x-axis on that chart is time in years).

Meaning that people were dying from COVID-19. Who woulda thought it?

 

[expos4ever]

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.

Obviously just unsubstantiated speculation.

You are engaged in obvious "what if" speculation. You simply have no factual basis for this hypothesis that time will show that there all sorts of hidden threats from the vaccine.

 

[expos4ever]

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,

Misleading - there is robust short-term data to show that the vaccine is safe. And while is not yet any long-term empirical data, there are technical reasons for not expecting significant long-term consequences of the vaccine. To steal from another poster:

The RNA and the spike protein both disappear after a few days, so they can't directly cause any long-term effects; any long-term effect is likely to result from your immune response, which has a persistent memory.

Being infected with the virus (which is really the only alternative to being vaccinated in the long run) causes the same kinds of problems, but much, much more commonly. This is not surprising, since infection exposes your immune system to a much broader and more intense set of stimuli than vaccination. And of course, infection also causes lots of other problems that aren't seen with vaccines.

So we see yet another deception from the anti-vaxxers - they rail on and on about possible long-term effects of the vaccine while ignoring the fact any such effects almost certainly must arise from the immune system response to the vaccine. And what does this mean? It means that if you get Covid, your body will mount the same immunological response.

And thereby provoke the same long-term side effects!

And, of course, Covid produces a host of other problems as well.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

If it turns that the risks of a particular vaccine outweighs the benefit for a particular population, the government will almost assuredly revise the guidelines.

This has already happened here in Canada! They advised young women to not take Astrazeneca after the stroke thing was discovered! And I believe it was not even clear the risks the vaccine outweighed the benefit - they were just erring on the side of caution.

Here we see yet another hole in your entire argument which has more such holes than Swiss cheese - you speculate that the government will behave recklessly by hiding the risks.

And yet when vaccine problems are discovered, we are literally drowned in information about these risks!!!!

So even though the evidence shows that the government has conceded a number of risks (stroke from AZ, heart inflammation from mRNA), you speculate the exact opposite - that they are hiding things from us.

 

[expos4ever]

1. Do you disagree that the risk/benefit ratio of the covid vaccines is most likely not equal across all groups and ages, and so the most logical and rational approach now is to halt vaccination while we evaluate adverse effects, and determine which groups and ages derive a favourable risk/benefit ratio from vaccination?

How do you not see the illogic in this? Yes, I agree that "the risk/benefit ratio of the covid vaccines is most likely not equal across all groups and ages". But if that is so, and even if it were shown that the vaccine risks outweigh the benefits for certain groups, the logical thing would be to stop vaccinating those groups, not suspend the entire vaccination program! And, in fact, this has been done in my own country! They advised young women to not take AZ! Did they stop all vaccinations? Of course not!

Look: Suppose it were to turn out that seatbelts actually cause more harm that good for toddlers. Would they tell adults to stop wearing seatbelts?

 

[expos4ever]

2. Do you disagree that it is morally and ethically questionable to request that young people take a vaccination that may harm them, and statistically may have an unfavourable risk/benefit ratio for people their age, in order to try and protect other people who are vulnerable due to age or some other infirmity?

No I don't think it is morally questionable. Again, it is hard to believe you thought this through as the problem with your argument is easily demonstrated by a representative example.

Suppose that the risk of death to young people posed by the vaccine is 1 in 1,000 and risk of those young people dying from covid is 1 in 10,000 - ten times worse.

Well, of course, the 25 year old young person is better off as an individual to not get the vaccine.

But, again, you conceal critical information, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe you are not doing so intentionally.

Covid is a contagious disease!!!! It is entirely plausible that if the young person does not take the vaccine, the risk their 60 year old vaccinated father dies from covid goes up from 1 in 500 to 1 in 50.

With the 25 year old getting the vaccine: their risk of death is 1 in 1,000, Dad's risk of death is 1 in 500.

With the 25 year old not getting the vaccine: their risk of death is 1 in 10,000, Dad's risk of death is 1 in 50.

Do you not see how we, as a society might still be better off in the 25 year old takes the vaccine.

And no one is forcing him to get it at all!!!

So let's be clear: you are effectively advocating that the 25 year old be denied the option of an increase in his own personal risk (by getting the vaccine) in order to reduce the risk to his father.

 

[High Fidelity]

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.

Who cares? I know I don’t. I’m not a hero for doing my job.

I praise the hospital for taking steps to protect patient safety as well as staff.

 

[expos4ever]

They're not interested in progressing the knowledge on risk/benefit for different ages and groups.

You, of course, have zero evidence for this.

How is that list of posts where we were guilty of strawman or genetic fallacy coming along?

 

[Aldebaran]

How does this graph support any concern about the vaccines?

Are you questioning/doubting/denying the science?

 

[Aldebaran]

Who cares? I know I don’t. I’m not a hero for doing my job.

I praise the hospital for taking steps to protect patient safety as well as staff.

I'll keep that in mind when the MSM holds up some group (nurses, Capitol Police, BLM protesters) as being heroes/victims that we're supposed to support when it comes time to also marginalize some other group.

 

[expos4ever]

Are you questioning/doubting/denying the science?

No I am not. You are evading. Please answer the question.

 

[Aldebaran]

No I am not. You are evading. Please answer the question.

People here have been answering your questions for quite a while now, and you're continuing to argue and mock. I doubt your questions are inviting of answers.

 

[expos4ever]

People here have been answering your questions for quite a while now, and you're continuing to argue and mock. I doubt your questions are inviting of answers.

We both know that this graph does not support the anti-vax position.

Prove me wrong - explain exactly how this graph challenges the vaccination program.

You will not do so - I guarantee it.

What you call arguing and mocking is actually battling lies and systematic misrepresentation.

Want me to summarize the falsehoods we have seen in this thread?

 

[Aldebaran]

We both know that this graph does not support the anti-vax position.

Prove me wrong - explain exactly how this graph challenges the vaccination program.

An enormous spike in deaths by vaccine over any other year--and just as the unapproved "vaccines" are rolled out--doesn't tell you anything?

You will not do so - I guarantee it.

Which is why nobody should bother trying to answer you. You already have your mind made up.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

A poster mistakes foolish behavior for courage.

I’ll let the years speak against the minutes. Things are happening so fast we won’t know who is right/wrong for a while.

 

[expos4ever]

An enormous spike in deaths by vaccine over any other year--and just as the unapproved "vaccines" are rolled out--doesn't tell you anything?

First of all, it a manifest falsehood to say this graph depicts deaths by vaccine. That is simply untrue, as explained below.

Here is the explanation as to why this graph means nothing.

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.