How to convince people to get vaccinated

Again, I'm not saying that I agree with those offices that don't want to do it. I'm merely saying that some don't.
These are private corporations. Do you think that it is reasonable to force them to do it, when there are plenty of other venues that do it, such as CVS. Walgreens, Walmart, Publix, Ingles, Health Departments, etc.? The offices that want to have the vaccine, do. The ones that do not want to have it, refer the patients out.

It's not like the existing venues are overwhelmed and can't provide the vaccine and need the help of medical offices. What happens more often is that they are empty and talking walk-ins and at the end of the day they need to throw away unused vaccine.

In a situation of a shortage of venues or low capacity in existing venues, you'd have a better point in forcing medical offices to offer the vaccine. That's not the reality, right now.

 

This is not an epidemic full of volunteers and you have not been an advocate for an 'all voluntary army' on masking requirements on shut=downs etc.
CDC recommendations suggest this is a vital tool. I am pretty sure that they understand this possibility that vaccine might get tossed. That's been enough to warrant regulation of private corporations all through this. A better question is why should those employees who take a Hippocratic oath to serve medicine, who's clear professional duty is to lead here, be exempt from responsibility when private corporations without either are obliged to cooperate with CDC reccomendations? The messaging is astoundingly bad for these offices to send patients elsewhere for someone else to accept the hassles, the labor costs .they refuse to incur.

 

Are you under the impression that I'm against having vaccines in medical offices?
Like I said, I'm merely reporting the fact that some offices don't want to provide them.
But no, I don't think they should be forced.

 

I am under the impression that you oppose any requirement that they provide them. I am not an opponent of requiring private corporations or businesses to fulfill CDC recommendations including masks, social distancing, and shutdowns . I will be damned if I send a message that barber shops, and liquor stores, churches, and malls get possible fines in pursuit of these recommendations, but doctors offices of all things, get an engraved invitation to decline or accept to the one recommendation that they uniquely can fulfill.

Its their job, and their professional ethical duty to provide those shots if the CDC says that they should. Unless you have a compelling reason otherwise, lets make sure that they cannot shirk it.

 

Doctor's job is to collect money from the patients.
I think all of the coronavirus fight should start from lifting the ban on Medicare for people younger then 65.
Somehow, neither Democrats nor Republicans have taken that opportunity.

 

While I prefer that they spontaneously offer it, I do oppose a requirement that they provide it, as long as an abundant number of other providers with idle capacity exist nearby.

 

Expand please. My wife and I were in a study of the JJ and she has had it as her vaccine?
I had the placebo.

 

Shame about the J&J. That's the one I got and I'm still feeling great.

 

The JJ has shown lower efficacy and more adverse events. I think they made a mistake, applying only for the one-shot regimen, which then artificially brought down their stats. They also suffered from a perception problem, because they completed their phase III much later than Pfizer and Moderna, therefore their phase III subjects faced the more infectious variants of the virus, further bringing down their efficacy stats (conceivably, if the initial Pfizer and Moderna studies were done around the same time, their stats wouldn't have been as stellar either). But the general public doesn't always get to think of these nuances, so, they just look at Pfizer's and Moderna's numbers being higher than J&J's, and they say "these are the ones I want."
Adenovirus vector vaccines are getting a bad rap due to the thrombotic thrombocytopenic events.
Also, the company ran into production problems, and had millions of doses thrown away due to manufacturing errors in a contractor's factory.
They couldn't meet promised production targets.
What looked like a great idea, to have a one-shot vaccine that didn't need deep cold chain, ended up plagued with problems and occupying a small niche in the market.
All things being equal, people started preferring the mRNA vaccines.
It was common to hear people saying, fairly or not, "The J&J is the one that gives you blood clots, right? I don't want that one."

 

That is fine. It is unclear if it is really less efficacious than the others, given that it's an apples to oranges comparison (the J&J didn't get to have a second shot to boost its effect, and it was tested against more aggressive variants). Also, the risk of thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndromes is higher for females, and these are rare anyway; so, you didn't have them. So, the J&J is still a vaccine with benefits that far outweigh the risks. When I said it got disgraced, I meant more in the sense of public perception than in actual scientific terms of real inferiority.

 

Yeah, I figured that's what you meant, and that's what I meant to build on in turn with my little anecdote. It's fine, seems to do the job, doesn't cause issues that I'm aware of, etc., so it's a shame that it ended up being so maligned and therefore avoided by people who didn't bother to look past the rumors and headlines.

 

The common side effects of the vaccine are the only ones which really have similarity to COVID symptoms.

Anaphylaxis does not, and nor do the clotting syndromes. Myocarditis/Pericarditis does sometimes present with cough, but the majority of these cases are mild, not life threatening. The clotting is the only really dangerous side effect, usually doesn't kick in until a few days later, and it's nothing like COVID. Drs now know the signs, and can distinguish them fairly easily. Anaphylaxis is almost always instantaneous (which is why they make you do 15 minutes of post-injection observation before you can leave), and normally the person will know they have allergies and epipens will be available.

 

Exactly. That's what I said too, in response to this massively misguided post. It is ridiculous and far-fetched to suppose that any doctor would misdiagnose anaphylaxis as a death from Covid-19, LOL. Not to forget, these people with adverse reactions to vaccines would not have RT-PCR positive tests. The idea that a doctor could confound the two situations is just an absurd idea posted by a poster who unsurprisingly doesn't understand Medicine. This poster looks at web sites with lists of symptoms, then spouts this nonsense. Typical.

 

The purpose of my post was not to suggest that doctors are misdiagnosing or misrecording, but that the bureaucracy dissimenating medical information for the policymakers could be mixing it up, because that bureaucracy is looking at lines of data, not patients. As I already noted, some CDC studies are referring to recently (<2 weeks) vaccinated patients as 'unvaccinated.' The doctors of course know whether their patients are vaccinated or not and whether their patients are suffering the symptoms of covid infection or vaccine reaction or both, but at what point in the process of disseminating that patient medical data after the on-site staff entered it into the system is this redefinition applied? I understand that recently vaccinated patients are not being treated or recorded as unvaccinated (or vise versa) by doctors. But it seems to me that people assessing the data and determining policy based on the data could easily get some the 'vaccinated' and 'unvaccinated' datasets screwed up depending whether they're applying this definition or not, as one example.

 

I would imagine doctors report myocarditis or thrombotic syndrome as what they are, and those who've tested positive for COVID as just that. I'm not sure I'm following your line of thinking?

I understand the two week window post vaccination (in which people aren't considered vaccinated), but post-vaccine reactions - as mentioned - would not be confused for COVID by a doctor keeping abreast of the science.

 

Gee, you just keep forgetting about two pesky things: death certificates, and Covid-19 RT-PCR tests.
Bureaucrats won't report something that is totally contrary to what the doctor writes down as cause of death.
Doctors know when a death is caused by a vaccine reaction, as opposed to a death caused by the virus.
Like crank and I have demonstrated, there is just no way to mix up the two situations. None. Therefore the tests and death certificates will reflect the correct situation. Therefore the bureaucrats will report the correct situation to the policy makers.

The diagnosis and the cause of death on the death certificate in themselves have nothing to do with weather or not the person is *fully* vaccinated (another piece of information you're choosing to skip over), so you're mixing up two different dimensions. Death certificates don't have a place to write down if a person is fully vaccinated or not, except if the person does die of a vaccine reaction. Still, we'd only write down, vaccine reaction (and what kind) and wouldn't say if the person had been "fully" vaccinated or not, given that reactions can occur with first doses too, and typically occur before two weeks go by.

A person is *fully* vaccinated 2 weeks after the second dose of a 2-dose vaccine, or 2 weeks after a vaccine that is intended as single-dose.

Why? Because if it's less than that, the immune system hasn't had the time to learn how to deal with the infection yet. Therefore, that person has NOT earned the full benefit of the vaccine, and is subject to more serious illness.

You are not making any sense.

At this point you should just say, "oops, OK, yes, I didn't think of this right, and I'm not making sense. I stand corrected. Thanks for setting it straight."

Somehow I doubt that this is what you will say, but you should.

By the way, I'd be curious to know if the CDC does refer to a non-FULLY vaccinated person as "unvaccinated." Do you have a link? Not that it would change anything because your point was that doctors would mix up the two situations due to what you thought were similar symptoms. Once we clarified to you that this is plain impossible, you moved the goalposts and said that bureaucrats will mischaracterize it. Then we clarified that it won't happen due to the death certificates... and now you're making some point that people are incorrectly being called unvaccinated? Again, even if they were, it wouldn't change the fact that the diagnosis of cause of death will still be done correctly because doctors will report it correctly on death certificates.

 

The AMA leadership, and too many of the rank and file, have sold their soul to the Pharma Devil many years ago. It's a pity.

 

No doctor will take responsibility to force vaccine on the patients, because they know very well about absurdity that federal government pushes upon people.
In order to be "fully" vaccinated the patient should get a booster every 4 - 6 months, since virus is always changing (as it supposed to be). At the end those boosters will lead to depletion of immune resources and patient eventually die from other type of viruses or some bacterial infection.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094965/
While T cell-based vaccines have the potential to provide protection against chronic virus infections, they also have the potential to generate immunopathology following subsequent virus infection.

 

Oh, you mean you rushed into it and took an essentially worthless and possibly dangerous "vaccine"?
You should have been paid to be a test subject.

I was thinking if I did get the vaccine, to get the J&J...glad I waited.

 

OOPS: Study claiming 1 in 1,000 risk of heart inflammation after COVID vaccine got calculation wrong: The study authors have requested the paper be retracted because the incorrect data ‘vastly inflates the incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis.’

Gee, the problem is all "laypeople".

"The study authors have requested the paper be retracted because the incorrect data 'vastly inflates the incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis'"

10 in 10,000 based on a wrong denominator.

Corrected it's 4 in 100,000 doses.

Screw-up released in pre-print:

It's the "laypeople".

Taking responsibility, that we can respect.