undefined | Better HN

0 pointsinter_netuser4y ago0 comments

I would never agree with this comment above, but today we see nurses fired over this whole vaccine issue. Nurses, who worked frontlines during the first wave when vaccines weren't available, contracted and recovered from covid, and have antibodies to prove it.

They were called heroes.

Today, none of that apparently matters, valuable medical staff were fired anyway, in a middle of pandemic. Why???

Only to turn around, and demand that the vaccinated, but COVID-positive workers (who'd normally have to isolate) work the COVID wards instead?

Couldn't they just ask those that declined vaccination, but previously infected with COVID, work in those wards?

They've done that in 2020, and if they are willing to do that again, are they not heroes, risking their own lives to save others? Well, suddenly they are now pariahs instead of heroes, and must be fired and ridiclued.

How does any of this make sense???

I'm lost at this point.

0 comments

ceejayoz4y ago

> They've done that in 2020, and if they are willing to do that again, are they not heroes, risking their own lives to save others? Well, suddenly they are now pariahs instead of heroes, and must be fired and ridiclued.

If you treat a gunshot victim with napkins from McDonalds because it's the only thing you have, that's great. If a year later you've got better options and you're still using the napkins, you're an asshole.

It was brave of folks to work in healthcare before we had the vaccine, knowing that there was a very good chance they'd get sick and that there wasn't much they could do to prevent it. It is stupid to take that risk now, when there is something they can do.

"I'm not taking the vaccine because there isn't one" and "I'm not taking the vaccine despite there being one" aren't comparable, and it's weird to pretend they are.

inter_netuserOP4y ago

> “ It is stupid to take that risk now”

This is just handwaving. Where is your data to support that it’s in your own words “stupid”? This seems like an emotional feeling rather than a thesis well supported by data.

I’ve specifically stated “with antibodies to prove it”, which you conveniently ignored. This would be a much higher bar than even previous infection, and perhaps even unnecessary.

Vaccination isn’t some ritual we must perform to exorcise some mythical ghost.

It’s a medical intervention, with measurable results and risks, but also consumes a scarce resource, and therefore must be offered ONLY when appropriate.

vaccinating people who don’t even need it results in denying life-saving vaccines for people who actually DO need them. Like the entirely unvaccinated billions around the world who live on 2 dollars per day. Numerous guidelines recommend postponing vaccination after positive results by months. Mayo clinic recommends 90 days or even longer, depending on the situation at hand. Is Mayo Clinic “stupid”?

Please explain how this guideline is “stupid”: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-if-a...

As you can see below, from BMC and Lancet, reputable journals, reinfection is very infrequent in health care workers. 2-8 incidents per 100,000 people-hours. Case fatality is at 0.13%, nearly 30 times lower than non-HCW, and I believe a lot of these have been primary infections too.

Do you have any numbers to provide support your thesis that it’s “stupid” at all? You’d only have to prove that infection controls and previous exposure is a less effective intervention than a vaccine, specifically in HCW setting, and that its so ineffective it supports denying vaccine supply to those at 30 TIMES MORE RISK.

In essence your statement reads: 1) “hospitals can’t control infectious agents”, 2) “we should NOT prioritize those 30x at risk and too poor to afford it”, 3) “HCW are too “stupid” (in your own words” to assess risks of infection controls they themselves institute and operate; and risks of the disease they themselves see every day”

Seems like big claims to me.

Looking forward to your data to support your thesis.

Actual data: Reinfection rate in HCW: “2.5 reinfections per 100,000 person-days)”

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128...

“The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

“case fatality (0.13% versus 2.77%, p<0.001) were significantly lower in HCWPs compared with non-HCWPs.”

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00564-6/ful...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse