Majority of Southern California nurses refusing the COVID vaccine

I’ll confess that I didn’t see this one coming. Much of the cable news programming currently blasting across our screens these days is celebrating the arrival of the first COVID vaccines approved for general distribution. People lining up to be the first in their state to receive it are hailed in the press like rock stars. But out in Southern California, there’s one group of people who are choosing to either delay taking the shot or simply declining entirely. Those are the nurses. CBS Los Angeles is reporting that a recent survey conducted by the UCLS Fielding School of Public Health reports that a full two-thirds of the nurses surveyed either said no or at least… not yet.

A number of local healthcare workers have reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use, according to a new survey from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.

“Two-thirds of the health workers that we surveyed wished to delay vaccination or not get vaccinated,” Dr. Anne Rimoin, the senior author of the study, said Monday.

She said the survey collected data from about 600 workers between mid-September and the end of October.

At least out where I live, healthcare workers are among the first being vaccinated, which kind of makes sense since so many of them are dealing with COVID patients on a daily basis. And at least based on the information being spread around by the media, you would think that these educated individuals would put the most faith in the system that developed and tested these vaccines, right? So what gives with the nurses in California?

A representative for the union covering these nurses was quick to point out that their members are not “anti-vaxxers.” 90% of them reportedly get the flu vaccine every year.

And what's also sad is that dozens of medical professionals for over 6 months have tried to get the message out there about taking certain preventatives which boost your immune system and prevent you from contracting the covid-19.

Vit.D3, Zinc, Vit.C, Magnesium. A simple compund costing about 10 cents per day that could have saved tens of thousands of lives!

Facebook and You Tube even banned the doctors and froze their websites. I got 30 days in Face Book "jail" for sharing the info....... go figure!

I’m with you on both counts. I’m in no rush to get the vaccine not out of any concern for the negligible risks, but because I don’t need it as badly. I’ll get the vaccine in due time, but in the meantime, I’m at low risk from the virus.

But I think the news here is that if the virus doesn’t scare the respondents of this survey sufficiently to motivate them to take the vaccine despite their concerns, it shouldn’t scare the rest of us very badly. If isn’t enough of a threat to warrant the hospitals compelling their employees to take a vaccine that has been demonstrated to be 95% effective and safe, then it certainly isn’t enough of a threat to warrant compelling any private citizen to shut himself in at home, close his business, or cover his face in public.

All I’ve wanted is for “non-pharmaceutical interventions” like lockdowns and mask mandates to be scrutinized at least as rigorously as, if not much more rigorously than, pharmaceutical interventions like vaccines and therapeutics. If anything, one should require far more compelling evidence to support compelling someone to wear a mask against his will (let alone shut down his business) than to allow someone to take a drug.

An R0 of 0.8 would mean the disease never took off. That’s not how R0 works. Given the rapid spread of the disease, clearly that’s not a real value.

What you’re looking at in the link is an incomplete value for Rt based on diagnosed cases. It even says so right in the link: “Rt of COVID-19 in the U.S. as of December 14, 2020, by state”. Rt (more commonly Re) is not the same as R0. R0 doesn’t change by state (unless there’s a difference in the dominant strain affecting transmission, and there’s no evidence of that here).

Incorrect.

My ass it's incorrect.

What the CDC stated was that 6% of COVID-19 death certificates only listed COVID-19 on the death certificate. The US Standard Certificate of Death (seen here) has 4 lines in Section 32 Part 1, where you're supposed to list chain of events...[yada yada yada]...

Here's a quote from your vaunted CDC doc:

"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely...it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed'. In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID-19 infection was likely."

Bravo. Nothing like "science" am I right? Why the hell would a definite diagnosis of the "great plague of 2020" not be possible? Eh? Supposedly a vaccine for this freaking thing can be made within a year, but we can't definitively diagnose the presence of the disease that we're trying to vaccinate against? Perhaps more importantly, why would the CDC be so lenient in allowing diagnoses of this great plague when incorrect diagnosis can have such a dire effect?

In other words, that 6% number where the only thing listed on the death certificate was COVID-19? That should be 0%. CDC was calling out those filling out the death certificates for being lazy and/or stupid about it and not following the guidance.

There exists nothing in the aforementioned literature to suggest this, so I am forced to conclude that you retrieved this concluson from your own posterior. One might be tempted to reflexively assign to you the assumption of telepathic ability, such that you see well into the deep cerebral recesses of the writers of this obfuscatory CDC tripe, but I am not so inclined.

Fact is, someone who's had diabetes for 30 years who gets COVID-19 and dies 2 weeks later of lung failure didn't die because of diabetes.

Sure, and someone who has had diabetes for 30 years and finally reaches his natural conclusion, upsetting as that may be, and, as a result of his lack of acceptance of said conclusion, dials 911 and is brought into the hospital, would then be exposed to the unfortunate plethora of raw humanity therein, replete with its teeming infirmities, and might, within minutes, newly find himself the host of the very same virus that he had previously successfully avoided. In the event that said newly introduced virus does not have the capacity to neutralize the reduced circulatory capacity nor impeded circulatory pathway of the aforementioned unfortunately short-lived individual, that individual will die of the very same cause that he would have died from in the non-COVID era, but now accompanied by the presence of the greatly-debated corona virus. Did the corona virus kill him? Clearly not, but it will, for damn sure, be on his f***king death certificate.

More info is here

Not really, no.

"tests that find Coca-Cola COVID positive"

Sure, if one screws up the test and uses it completely incorrectly, one can get all manner of inaccurate results. The tests are certified to work under specific controls. Throw those out the window and the test isn't reliable. It doesn't mean anything about the reliability of the test when performed properly.

My thermometer tells me if I have a fever. If I hold it up against a light bulb [etc etc strawmen yada yada].

Let's say we have a disease that supposedly threatens millions of lives within the next year. One of the ways in which we hope to stave off that horrible, unfathomable result is by tracking the disease properly, so we can both treat it and prevent it from spreading. So we come up with a testing process, upon which, perhaps, the survival of the human race depends (given the extremity of the actions taken to suppress this supposed disease, in the form of lockdowns, universal masks, etc one must conclude this is akin to an extinction event).

Then, lo and behold, we find that the accepted testing process yields a positive result for f***king Coca-Cola, or yields a positive result for a globally-known entrepreneur 50% of the time, and a negative one for the other 50%, and other such anomalies. Are we going to be content with saying, "Oh, I guess the test was used incorrectly." or, as I suspect, would we be saying "What the F**K!!!! Why the hell aren't there iron-clad, unambiguous, titanium-rigid guidelines for performing this test, so that, in our hour of potential extinction, we don't misreport every g**damned result we test for?"

Or, perhaps put another way, when the threshhold for PCR tests is 35 cycles, and people are testing for COVID at 45 cycles and thusly are receiving false results routinely, the problem isn't with the test being used incorrectly - it is with the test being deliberately MISUSED to achieve a result that a proper test could not provide.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.