This is what happens when concerned individuals are concerned about world health as compared to a profit-driven company. They both have their place, but you tend to be drawn to the former.

"The real beauty of the CORBEVAX vaccine that Drs. Hotez and Bottazzi created is that intellectual property of this vaccine will be available to everybody," Keith Martin says. "So you can get manufacturers in Senegal, and South Africa and Latin America to be able to produce this particular vaccine."

By contrast, the makers of Pfizer and Moderna, for example, are not sharing their recipe.

 

Open source helps the world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

From the "who is teaching your children" dept.: Anyway, a school teacher in Texas was arrested for putting her 13 year old son in the trunk of her car after he tested positive for covid. She apparently didn't want to become exposed herself. I've got to admit, as far as covid protection goes, that was probably pretty effective, but what was she going to do when they got home? have him live in the tool shed or something? Eh... I probably don't want to know.

"Texas mother has been charged with endangering a child after she allegedly placed her 13-year-old son, who had Covid-19, into her car's trunk to avoid being exposed to the virus, according to a warrant from the Harris County District Attorney's Office."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...id-exposure-to-covid-19/ar-AASCsXg?li=BBnbcA1

 

Ridiculous bitch ever hear of masks? Vaccines to ameliorate the more severe effects of the virus? If he was at home, and not in the tool shed then she’d know that the family was already exposed. Why not educate herself if she’s supposedly a school teacher? I’d hate to have a child in one of her class rooms.

 

During the pandemic, we switched our child to homeschooling. I see an improvement in his knowledge and more interest in his studies. But we made this decision, not because of the covid situation, but because the quality of studies at school deteriorated a lot due to quarantine measures. The child was very stressed because he didn't want to study, but the situation has improved on homeschooling. In the last month at school, he got worms, but the teachers immediately panicked that it was a coronavirus and his classmates started bullying him. We quickly cured him with fenbenlab fenbendazole capsules, but he does not want to go to school anymore.

 

Insanity. It's also unlikely that this is the first time that she's been abusive toward her son.

 

Ling before covid, my sister decided to home school her son. Mainly it was because of the almost daily bomb scare threats the school had.
He grew up and now works in the medical profession. It can work.


The truth is out there

 

The real irony is that those same hospitals are NOT allowing the nurses and staff who are unvaccinated to work, which contributes to the staff shortage. IOW, if you are vaccinated but actually have covid, you can work, but if you are unvaccinated but do NOT have the virus, you are NOT allowed to work. What sense does that make?

I'm not a big fan of vaccine refusers, but these people showed up to work every day for the first 2 years of the crisis, and now when health care workers are needed they are being locked out?

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/202...laces-2200-unvaccinated-workers-unpaid-leave/

 

First off, from reading both articles, the move to allow asymptomatic positive workers to remain on the job is not a decision that is supported by many in health care. Sounds like it came down from management with no boots on the ground.

I’m not sure if the viral load is truly less in asymptomatic positive people but they could be potentially spreading the virus to patients who are in the health care settings for any number of reasons but are negative, along with fellow workers. It’s especially troublesome because of Omicron’s ability to infect even the vaccinated.

The article states:
“Large groups of unvaccinated people are fueling the current increase in cases and 97% to 99% of COVID-19 hospital admissions are unvaccinated patients,” Greg A. Adams, chair and CEO of Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan, said in a statement at the time the vaccine requirement was announced. “Making vaccination mandatory is the most effective way we can protect our people our patients, and the communities we serve.”

You can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth, which by that I mean, if the data shows it’s the unvaccinated causing the surge and as a result, a company mandates that their workers get vaccinated, then they must comply to keep their jobs. Pure and simple. It doesn’t matter if they showed up for work in the first year because there were no vaccines available but for a health care worker to refuse them now is stupid and ill advised if they’ll be in close contact with the incoming who are sick enough to warrant hospitalization. They increase their chances of becoming critically ill themselves.

Like the first article stated:

But there are other, safer solutions to the staffing crisis than asking coronavirus-positive healthcare workers to tend to patients, she said, including investing in more staffing, making efforts to improve compensation and morale, tightening visitor controls, canceling all non-elective and non-critical procedures and focusing on telemedicine.

I agree. If the science shows the quarantine period can be reduced for these asymptomatic workers, that’s gravy, but by all means stay home at least a week.

By the way, I applaud health care workers who are tirelessly working to care for the myriad of patients who were too stupid to protect themselves. They might have been suffering the sniffles at home from Omicron rather than clogging up the hospital systems now.

 

I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth, and I've got no problem with a healthcare system mandating its workers be vaccinated. However, if the hospitals are overwhelmed and need workers so badly they are willing to take people they KNOW are covid+ and still infectious and have them work, what possible rationale can they have for refusing to let people who are covid negative but unvaccinated work? They shouldn't work because they might become infected and pose the same risk to their patients that the working infected provider actually poses?

 

Well, we both agree that a healthcare facility has the right to mandate vaccines for their workers. What kind of message does it send then to continue to allow the unvaccinated employees to flout company policy while other workers complied whether they were fully on board or not?

I believe the policy was to allow asymptomatic fully vaccinated and boosted workers to continue to deliver care because they did what was required of them despite the bad luck of a break though infection and they were otherwise on their feet. Although as surviving’s article stated, this isn’t a popular policy with many other workers in these facilities and I think it should be canned in favor of a reasonable isolation period but I don’t make those decisions.

Too bad unvaccinated and very sick people are taking hospital beds away from others who may need them for other medical conditions and are exhausting the medical personnel trying so hard to save them, but it’s on them. No one is forcing anyone to get vaccinated but they have to face the consequences of that decision. Could be a loss of a job or a loss of life if there is a shortage of healthy workers to care for them after the virus infects them. I wouldn’t worry too much about them.

 

Right! You just hit on the actual problem. The problem is that even in an *emergency* staffing shortage these health care institutions are more concerned with *sending the right message* than they are with providing the best healthcare possible - which is supposed to be their actual mission.

And they aren't the only ones. In Washington there was a freak snowstorm that shut down a lot of roads, and the unvaccinated and laid off snow plow drivers offered to clean the roads as it was an unexpected (hence urgent/emergent) situation and the State said "no". Someone driving a snowplow is NO risk to anyone else, covid+, -, or otherwise as they are not interacting with anyone else, but again, the state was more interested in *sending the right message* than in actually doing the job of plowing the streets.

Our institutions that are supposed to providing emergency services have become more concerned with *sending the right message* than actually providing emergency services. THAT is the real problem with covid response right now, not "hiring the unvaccinated".

 

The Supreme Court upheld the mandate for healthcare workers but voided the proposed mandate for big business calling it an overreach of government authority. Their rationale is in the article linked, and it makes a lot of sense, this just isn't an OSHA issue, and it would burden the employers as being the enforcers of the policy, and the involved workers who would bear the cost of it..

"
In a 6-3 decision, the justices agreed with that argument, saying that the workplace safety rule for large employers was too broad to fall under the authority of the Department of Labor's Occupational Health and Safety Administration to regulate workplace safety.

"Covid-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather," the court's majority wrote.

"That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases."

"This is no 'everyday exercise of federal power,'" they added. "It is instead a significant encroachment on the lives - and health - of a vast number of employees."

"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59989476

 

It’s about sending a message all right that we want all of our employees vaccinated to protect everyone on our work force. If you don’t agree, bye bye. As far as I’m concerned that’s the right message.

 

It also doesn’t prevent private employers from making their own mandates nor does it provide any “rights” for those who have been fired due to the issue to be reinstated to their former positions. It’s going to be handled state by state which will become another shit show for companies that have work forces in more than one state.

 

I wonder if your opinion would change if you needed to have a procedure done only to find out the hospital couldn't perform it without what previously would have been an unthinkably long delay before having in performed. It's one thing to debate what people "should" be doing when it's an abstract discussion on the internet, it's quite another when a patient is told they just can't get treatment they need when they need it, and there's nowhere else they can go to get it done as the situation at the surrounding hospitals was even worse.

Now for all I know, you as an individual might be more "big picture" oriented than most, but I can say that most people I've seen in that situation care less about what message is being sent than they are about finding out their care is being delayed because there's no staff to perform it.

 

I agree completely. Companies are free to put whatever health mandates (assuming they are legal) on their employees they wish, and the employees have no "right" to flout them and may be fired if they don't comply.

I don't think that's what this scotus case was about, this was more about whether or not the .gov could force an unfunded mandate on big business.