Hyperbole Joe wrote:
.Sure Jan wrote:
ANCHORAGE — There was one bed coming available in the intensive care unit in Alaska’s largest hospital.
It was the middle of the night, and the hospital, Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage, had been hit with a deluge of coronavirus patients. Doctors now had a choice to make: Several more patients at the hospital, most of them with Covid-19, were in line to take that last I.C.U. spot. But there was also someone from one of the state’s isolated rural communities who needed to be flown in for emergency surgery.
Who should get the final bed?
Dr. Steven Floerchinger gathered with his colleagues for an agonizing discussion. They had a better chance of saving one of the patients in the emergency room, they determined. The other person would have to wait.
That patient died.
. . .
“When your hospitals are full, you can’t just put them into an ambulance and take them to another town,” Senator Lisa Murkowski said of Alaska patients in a floor speech to Congress on Friday. She described her own trip to an emergency room in Fairbanks, where a loved one needed help for a non-Covid problem. They were told that critical care beds were full and that they might have to fly to Seattle.
Just a lot of hyperbole. The article gives you one night for goodness sakes with a screenplay good enough for ER.
. . .
My wife works in a city hospital and it has not once been “overwhelmed.” It’s just hyperbole to push the false narrative.
You asked for "a hospital"--that would be ONE--and s/he gave you one. Move the goalposts much?
BTW your wife works in *a* hospital, too. I don't think any poster has asserted or implied that *every* hospital is overwhelmed--we all know that isn't true--but to suggest that the situation in one hospital indicates the situation in all of them is specious reasoning.
this is it wrote:
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/vince-stott-57-pompano-beach-fl-owner-broadway-legacy-films-anti-vaxxer-dead-from-covid
A website making fun of people who have died from COVID... You guys are disgusting.
One antivaxxer on the moon: a problem
All antivaxxers on the moon: problem solved!
If Big Pharma was about health and not about $$, they would step up and waive their shield against legal liability in connection with vaccines.
If the things are safe, then stand behind them.
Lots more people would trust them and get vaxxed.
But this isn't about public health, is it?
Toss in the fact that they are pushing the vaccines on those who have natural immunity and the debate is over.
carmine9 wrote:
If Big Pharma was about health and not about $$, they would step up and waive their shield against legal liability in connection with vaccines.
If the things are safe, then stand behind them.
Lots more people would trust them and get vaxxed.
But this isn't about public health, is it?
Toss in the fact that they are pushing the vaccines on those who have natural immunity and the debate is over.
The reality is if they had to compensate the victims of their vaccines, the vaccines would cost $1,000 or more a shot instead of $20 a shot. It is cheaper for the CDC to bury the stats and explain away the deaths and adverse reactions as events that would have occurred with or without the vaccination and not compensate the victims.
joed|rtay wrote:
[quote]carmine9 wrote:
If Big Pharma was about health and not about $$, they would step up and waive their shield against legal liability in connection with vaccines.
If the things are safe, then stand behind them.
Lots more people would trust them and get vaxxed.
But this isn't about public health, is it?
Toss in the fact that they are pushing the vaccines on those who have natural immunity and the debate is over.
The reality is if they had to compensate the victims of their vaccines, the vaccines would cost $1,000 or more a shot i
But why? They are safe and effective. How could they possibly be successfully sued for so much money that their price would increase 50 fold?
Why is it no other industry gets this type of protection?
All these threads are getting repetitious, and I haven't been helping. So I (including all my isotopes) won't be posting in Covid-19 threads for a while, at least until after Thanksgiving.
Wishing everyone a happy and healthy T-Day (and Turkey Trots)!
Actually, when they did the initial EUA, they described the reality, which is that the benefits outweigh the risks for most populations (not that the vaccines are necessarily "safe"). I feel that they diverted from that standard in their approval of the vaccines for adolescents earlier in the pandemic. Primarily I feel this way because the benefits for adolescents are almost unmeasurable. We are close to two years into the pandemic and the fatality rate and hospitalization rate for those under 25 are not significantly different than they were before the pandemic. There is no need to vaccinate these groups. Additionally, the risks for the previously infected are relatively high, while the benefits are relatively small. The approval for these groups reeks more of politics than of science which calls into question the credibility of the entire organization. The scientific approach would be to run an antibody test before administering a vaccine in order to mitigate risks for the previously infected and to preserve the vaccinations for those who need them most (elderly and immune compromised).
joed|rtay wrote:
Actually, when they did the initial EUA, they described the reality, which is that the benefits outweigh the risks for most populations (not that the vaccines are necessarily "safe"). I feel that they diverted from that standard in their approval of the vaccines for adolescents earlier in the pandemic. Primarily I feel this way because the benefits for adolescents are almost unmeasurable. We are close to two years into the pandemic and the fatality rate and hospitalization rate for those under 25 are not significantly different than they were before the pandemic. There is no need to vaccinate these groups. Additionally, the risks for the previously infected are relatively high, while the benefits are relatively small. The approval for these groups reeks more of politics than of science which calls into question the credibility of the entire organization. The scientific approach would be to run an antibody test before administering a vaccine in order to mitigate risks for the previously infected and to preserve the vaccinations for those who need them most (elderly and immune compromised).
In other words, it's the $$, not science and public health
Have a good Turkey Day as well. I hope you do well in your Turkey Trot (if your health department allows it to take place). Encourage your elderly relatives to get their boosters now as the vaccine efficacy drops dramatically after 5-6 months (Harambe refuses to acknowledge this). Unfortunately a lot of previously vaccinated individuals will be relying upon vaccinated immunity at a time when it is failing and there will likely be huge outbreaks in the weeks following Thanksgiving gatherings in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/ryan-vaughn-24-florence-ms-anti-vaxxer-in-icu-with-covidhq wrote:
this is it wrote:
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/vince-stott-57-pompano-beach-fl-owner-broadway-legacy-films-anti-vaxxer-dead-from-covidA website making fun of people who have died from COVID... You guys are disgusting.
Play stupid games....
this is it wrote:
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/ryan-vaughn-24-florence-ms-anti-vaxxer-in-icu-with-covidhq wrote:
A website making fun of people who have died from COVID... You guys are disgusting.
Yup, you are a maggot.
hq wrote:
this is it wrote:
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/ryan-vaughn-24-florence-ms-anti-vaxxer-in-icu-with-covidYup, you are a maggot.
How are somber warnings to the risks of being naively, ideologically anti-vax "making fun of someone."
Sharing the reality of the situation is what we, as stewards of evidence, do in this thread :)
joed|rtay wrote:
Actually, when they did the initial EUA, they described the reality, which is that the benefits outweigh the risks for most populations (not that the vaccines are necessarily "safe"). I feel that they diverted from that standard in their approval of the vaccines for adolescents earlier in the pandemic. Primarily I feel this way because the benefits for adolescents are almost unmeasurable. We are close to two years into the pandemic and the fatality rate and hospitalization rate for those under 25 are not significantly different than they were before the pandemic. There is no need to vaccinate these groups. Additionally, the risks for the previously infected are relatively high, while the benefits are relatively small. The approval for these groups reeks more of politics than of science which calls into question the credibility of the entire organization. The scientific approach would be to run an antibody test before administering a vaccine in order to mitigate risks for the previously infected and to preserve the vaccinations for those who need them most (elderly and immune compromised).
Why not give up the shield against legal liability if Big Pharma knows the vax is safe and effective?
hq wrote:
this is it wrote:
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/vince-stott-57-pompano-beach-fl-owner-broadway-legacy-films-anti-vaxxer-dead-from-covidA website making fun of people who have died from COVID... You guys are disgusting.
I laugh when Harambe/2600 Bro's fellow homosexuals die of Aids and prolapsed sphincters, so it's all good.
CountChocula wrote:
Conservative Right-Winger wrote:
And now the Liberal governors are starting to turn on Tyrant Joe. Lol.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-governor-kelly-kansas-biden-vaccine-mandate.ampThe tide is turning for freedom loving Americans who are fed up with these mandates as government overreach & fundamentally unconstitutional! 👍
It's pretty telling that you think someone should go along with what the president says 100% of the time just because they are part of the same political party.
You're badly mistaken - on the Covid issue Biden expects every Democratic governor be on board with his policies including his mandates. It's considered mutany when a Democratic govenor goes against his policies. Lol. Kelly, a moderate Democrat, doesn't want to lose her re-election bid next year like McAuliffe did. Now, the beautiful state of Virginia is under Republican control & the Libs go home devastated! 😆
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/too-close-to-call-virginia-governors-race-headlines-us-elections-2021-11-02/carmine9 wrote:
If Big Pharma was about health and not about $$, they would step up and waive their shield against legal liability in connection with vaccines.
If the things are safe, then stand behind them.
Lots more people would trust them and get vaxxed.
But this isn't about public health, is it?
Toss in the fact that they are pushing the vaccines on those who have natural immunity and the debate is over.
Nice post...I'll drink to that. 🥂
Harambe wrote:
No surprise that COVID continues to get 'redder' as vaccination is primarily a political issue and disparities in vaccination are driving differences in COVID severity (hence, "pandemic of the unvaccinated")
Hence, it's not the "pandemic of the unvaccinated:"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/brownstone.org/articles/this-is-not-a-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated/amp/