How will anti-vaxxers lives be limited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed already. Some medical practices will only see vaccinated patients. This is not unusual or surprising or unbelievable.

Actually it is. Pls list out which practices have this policy.

Pavilion Pediatrics. Catonsville Primary Care. Catonsville Pediatrics. JHCP (at least I believe so. Multiple locations.) These are off the top of my head from where my kids go and where my friends kids go. All Baltimore County.

Any practice that requires a non-FDA approved vaccine is not a good practice.

Wrong. Very sought after specialist require this. Fact.

Someone should sue them out of existence. Their arrogance is demanding people take a vaccine approved for only emergency use in order to see them. They took an oath of ‘do no harm’ and are violating that.

I invite you to spend a lot of money trying to do that.

[Anonymous]

This is the current policy re: vaccination from doctors:

Vaccinate with caution if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to another vaccine (not including the COVID vaccines). Do not get the vaccine if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccines.


So what people here are saying is that we should completely and thoroughly punish people who medically should not be getting the vaccine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed already. Some medical practices will only see vaccinated patients. This is not unusual or surprising or unbelievable.

Actually it is. Pls list out which practices have this policy.

Pavilion Pediatrics. Catonsville Primary Care. Catonsville Pediatrics. JHCP (at least I believe so. Multiple locations.) These are off the top of my head from where my kids go and where my friends kids go. All Baltimore County.

Any practice that requires a non-FDA approved vaccine is not a good practice.

Wrong. Very sought after specialist require this. Fact.

Someone should sue them out of existence. Their arrogance is demanding people take a vaccine approved for only emergency use in order to see them. They took an oath of ‘do no harm’ and are violating that.

I invite you to spend a lot of money trying to do that.

OSHA will do so for me. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay sure is correct. This has already been covered. Certain practices will only see vaccinated patients.

Right now. This will soon stop as soon as Pfizer’s therapeutic hits the market because that stops the pandemic in its tracks.

The policy is being used as a carrot/stick and in a lot of cases, the practices are getting pressure from medical association and threats to their licensing.

NP. I would really like to see a site for that. Honest request! I want to keep tabs on how this evolves.

I think people are partially talking past each other because we may well have different expectations of how this plays out. As it is now -- our current situation, 5/5/2021 -- this consideration isn't going to make much difference to people overall. Some medical practices or other places might be screening, but most are not. It's not going to have much of an effect.

One group of people feels like this is more or less going to be the status quo for the US: still people getting sick and dying, but not overwhelming facilities, and not that many unexpected people. The deaths are mostly in people that this group already considers tolerable to lose, maybe because this group thinks societal impact of preventing it would be too great (they cite economic effects, small business closures, children's mental health, etc.). Maybe they just don't care about the groups who are dying. Maybe they don't know or believe the extend of "long COVID" concerns. Maybe a mix. Regardless, where we are is okay, and they expect it not to change much.

It's not that hard to understand why this group is going to find discussing segregating people out based on vaccination status to be overkill. The status quo is fine.

A second group expects that we will probably see this evolve -- both because places like India are not isolated from the rest of us, and they are concerned about the new variants. 65% of the deaths in India are now people under 45. Physicians are saying that the number of seriously ill and dying patients under 15 years old is rising, and they did not see that before. Or some in this second group are more aware of the extent of (and believe in) "long COVID" cases in young and middle age people. Or they are aware that the number of child deaths in the US will soon surpass the number of child deaths from H1N1, and that there have been nearly 16,000 COVID hospitalizations in the US already.

That second group does NOT think the status quo is likely to stay the same -- or at least, there is good reason to think that we are not going to be able to stay in this somewhat liminal status quo state. Either more parts of the world will torch up (despite vaccines) because of evolving virus, or whatever.

It's not hard to see why this group expects vaccination status to become quite important.

I think we don't understand each other. I don't think that is going to change very soon.

I posted somewhere on DCUM that there have been 297 child deaths so far in the US, with a significant portion being under 9 years old. (It's actually 303.) Someone responded rather angrily that there was no way this was true, they wanted a source because there would be "outrage" and it would be all over the news. It is true, and it isn't hitting many people's consciousness, for whatever reason.

I think we are coming from very different understandings of where we are and where we are likely to be going. I don't know how to fix that.

Great post, and very thoughtful analysis. And I say that as someone who falls into the first group you described.

I think if we can get up to 60% or so vaccination, that's probably good enough to get rid of all restrictions, and just go back to the way life was before the pandemic. We're never going to get the number of covid cases and deaths down to zero. Never. But, covid will fade into the background, just like the flu and other illnesses that kill hundreds or thousands of people every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the current policy re: vaccination from doctors:

Vaccinate with caution if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to another vaccine (not including the COVID vaccines). Do not get the vaccine if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccines.


So what people here are saying is that we should completely and thoroughly punish people who medically should not be getting the vaccine?

No one is saying that. Don't be stupid and get the vaccine if it is medically unadvised. No doctor would advise that and if you had bothered to get the vaccine, you would know that allergic issues are taken seriously and discussed before any vaccine is administered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed already. Some medical practices will only see vaccinated patients. This is not unusual or surprising or unbelievable.

Actually it is. Pls list out which practices have this policy.

Pavilion Pediatrics. Catonsville Primary Care. Catonsville Pediatrics. JHCP (at least I believe so. Multiple locations.) These are off the top of my head from where my kids go and where my friends kids go. All Baltimore County.

Any practice that requires a non-FDA approved vaccine is not a good practice.

Wrong. Very sought after specialist require this. Fact.

If it’s a fact - I would assume not for pediatric - and if for pediatric some kind of practice that specializes in high risk conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed already. Some medical practices will only see vaccinated patients. This is not unusual or surprising or unbelievable.

Actually it is. Pls list out which practices have this policy.

Pavilion Pediatrics. Catonsville Primary Care. Catonsville Pediatrics. JHCP (at least I believe so. Multiple locations.) These are off the top of my head from where my kids go and where my friends kids go. All Baltimore County.

Any practice that requires a non-FDA approved vaccine is not a good practice.

Wrong. Very sought after specialist require this. Fact.

If it’s a fact - I would assume not for pediatric - and if for pediatric some kind of practice that specializes in high risk conditions.

Of course it is not pediatric. The vaccine is currently only approved for 16 and up. But I would imagine that once it is approved for pediatric use, ti will be required by some pediatric practices just like many other vaccines are required. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the current policy re: vaccination from doctors:

Vaccinate with caution if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to another vaccine (not including the COVID vaccines). Do not get the vaccine if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccines.


So what people here are saying is that we should completely and thoroughly punish people who medically should not be getting the vaccine?

Literally no one is saying that. In fact, one reason it's so important that people who can be vaccinated are vaccinated is to protect people who, for legitimate medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed already. Some medical practices will only see vaccinated patients. This is not unusual or surprising or unbelievable.

Actually it is. Pls list out which practices have this policy.

Pavilion Pediatrics. Catonsville Primary Care. Catonsville Pediatrics. JHCP (at least I believe so. Multiple locations.) These are off the top of my head from where my kids go and where my friends kids go. All Baltimore County.

Any practice that requires a non-FDA approved vaccine is not a good practice.

Wrong. Very sought after specialist require this. Fact.

Someone should sue them out of existence. Their arrogance is demanding people take a vaccine approved for only emergency use in order to see them. They took an oath of ‘do no harm’ and are violating that.

I invite you to spend a lot of money trying to do that.

OSHA will do so for me. Thank you.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Doctors have the right to decline to take someone on as a patient, at least in a non-emergency situation. I've heard pediatricians say that they don't want anti-vaxx patients because it means that, right out of the gate, the patient does not trust the doctor's judgment, and that means the whole relationship is in trouble. How can they advise you about your health or your children's health if you don't trust them? If you don't trust your doctor, you should find a new one.

Plus, they have obligations to their other patients, especially those who are too young to be vaccinated or cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think this is the biggest factor which has everyone in mortal terror. Today data from the Seychelles (most vaccinations per capita >60%) is having a surge of cases where 1/3 of vaccinated people (2 doses of either China's Sinopharm or Astrazeneca) are actively ill. They say it is a surge from new variants.

They are locking down the country again so vaccinations are not necessarily the golden ticket out of this mess.

True.

Also true...NOT getting vaccinated allows the virus to continue to swirl and spread and mutate.

Get vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been discussed already. Some medical practices will only see vaccinated patients. This is not unusual or surprising or unbelievable.

Actually it is. Pls list out which practices have this policy.

Pavilion Pediatrics. Catonsville Primary Care. Catonsville Pediatrics. JHCP (at least I believe so. Multiple locations.) These are off the top of my head from where my kids go and where my friends kids go. All Baltimore County.

Any practice that requires a non-FDA approved vaccine is not a good practice.

Wrong. Very sought after specialist require this. Fact.

Someone should sue them out of existence. Their arrogance is demanding people take a vaccine approved for only emergency use in order to see them. They took an oath of ‘do no harm’ and are violating that.

I invite you to spend a lot of money trying to do that.

OSHA will do so for me. Thank you.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Doctors have the right to decline to take someone on as a patient, at least in a non-emergency situation. I've heard pediatricians say that they don't want anti-vaxx patients because it means that, right out of the gate, the patient does not trust the doctor's judgment, and that means the whole relationship is in trouble. How can they advise you about your health or your children's health if you don't trust them? If you don't trust your doctor, you should find a new one.

Plus, they have obligations to their other patients, especially those who are too young to be vaccinated or cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

A patient picking and choosing what guidance they respect and what guidance they will disrespect is a difficult doctor patient relationship. maybe in the past, mMDs would be a little more pliable but as the anti-vax situation has gotten more militant and dangerous, many MDs have had it and will take a stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the current policy re: vaccination from doctors:

Vaccinate with caution if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to another vaccine (not including the COVID vaccines). Do not get the vaccine if you have a history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccines.

So what people here are saying is that we should completely and thoroughly punish people who medically should not be getting the vaccine?

There is no component of any of the licensed COVID vaccines in the US that is in all three of them. It is exceedingly rare to be allergic to any component of any of them, and if you are, there is another one or two COVIDs vaccine available that does not have it.

The advice in bold is specific to each vaccine. There if no recommendation to avoid all three.

"Vaccinate with caution" does not mean "don't vaccinate." It means "vaccinate" and "watch carefully after."

[Anonymous]

The whining anti-vaxxer logic in this thread is quite something:

Anti-vaxxer: Nobody can make me do anything!! My rights!1!1!! It's a free country!!!!! Don't trust the government!!

Private businesses: Okay, we understand. Therefore we are going to require covid-19 vaccination for our customers.

Anti-vaxxer: What?!?! OMG!!! OSHA will save me!!! OSHA make these private businesses do.the thing I want!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay sure is correct. This has already been covered. Certain practices will only see vaccinated patients.

Right now. This will soon stop as soon as Pfizer’s therapeutic hits the market because that stops the pandemic in its tracks.

The policy is being used as a carrot/stick and in a lot of cases, the practices are getting pressure from medical association and threats to their licensing.

NP. I would really like to see a site for that. Honest request! I want to keep tabs on how this evolves.

I think people are partially talking past each other because we may well have different expectations of how this plays out. As it is now -- our current situation, 5/5/2021 -- this consideration isn't going to make much difference to people overall. Some medical practices or other places might be screening, but most are not. It's not going to have much of an effect.

One group of people feels like this is more or less going to be the status quo for the US: still people getting sick and dying, but not overwhelming facilities, and not that many unexpected people. The deaths are mostly in people that this group already considers tolerable to lose, maybe because this group thinks societal impact of preventing it would be too great (they cite economic effects, small business closures, children's mental health, etc.). Maybe they just don't care about the groups who are dying. Maybe they don't know or believe the extend of "long COVID" concerns. Maybe a mix. Regardless, where we are is okay, and they expect it not to change much.

It's not that hard to understand why this group is going to find discussing segregating people out based on vaccination status to be overkill. The status quo is fine.

A second group expects that we will probably see this evolve -- both because places like India are not isolated from the rest of us, and they are concerned about the new variants. 65% of the deaths in India are now people under 45. Physicians are saying that the number of seriously ill and dying patients under 15 years old is rising, and they did not see that before. Or some in this second group are more aware of the extent of (and believe in) "long COVID" cases in young and middle age people. Or they are aware that the number of child deaths in the US will soon surpass the number of child deaths from H1N1, and that there have been nearly 16,000 COVID hospitalizations in the US already.

That second group does NOT think the status quo is likely to stay the same -- or at least, there is good reason to think that we are not going to be able to stay in this somewhat liminal status quo state. Either more parts of the world will torch up (despite vaccines) because of evolving virus, or whatever.

It's not hard to see why this group expects vaccination status to become quite important.

I think we don't understand each other. I don't think that is going to change very soon.

I posted somewhere on DCUM that there have been 297 child deaths so far in the US, with a significant portion being under 9 years old. (It's actually 303.) Someone responded rather angrily that there was no way this was true, they wanted a source because there would be "outrage" and it would be all over the news. It is true, and it isn't hitting many people's consciousness, for whatever reason.

I think we are coming from very different understandings of where we are and where we are likely to be going. I don't know how to fix that.

Great post, and very thoughtful analysis. And I say that as someone who falls into the first group you described.

I think if we can get up to 60% or so vaccination, that's probably good enough to get rid of all restrictions, and just go back to the way life was before the pandemic. We're never going to get the number of covid cases and deaths down to zero. Never. But, covid will fade into the background, just like the flu and other illnesses that kill hundreds or thousands of people every year.

I appreciate your response. I think both general takes on the situation are understandable, given where we are coming from (with different information, or different priorities -- and not in bad faith, either).

I think we are all guessing about which way things will swing. I don't think anyone knows for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whining anti-vaxxer logic in this thread is quite something:

Anti-vaxxer: Nobody can make me do anything!! My rights!1!1!! It's a free country!!!!! Don't trust the government!!

Private businesses: Okay, we understand. Therefore we are going to require covid-19 vaccination for our customers.

Anti-vaxxer: What?!?! OMG!!! OSHA will save me!!! OSHA make these private businesses do.the thing I want!!!!

No, lawsuits will.