- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 35,657
- Likes
- 54,455
Same here. We had to get creative. . . Even had a phone nurse in a separate room in the basement when they felt well enough to take calls. It's just what we do.
If they have to close bc they don't have enough healthy people to work then so be it. It's not a contest. I would think they could move healthy people over from other stores to support. But everyone is struggling with staff. So perhaps they don't have options. I don't want sick people working.They have a 151 employees. How many have it?
But yea. I’ve worked in a place that had cases all the time. We never closed. Thank goodness.
The best "advertising" money can buy.the vaccine is a miracle and Godsend but it's also a crutch - take our eyes off therapy, take our eyes of things people should do to boost their immune system (is there any .gov communications about about anything but vaccines), take our eye off how to deploy resources.
it's like energy policy - it should be an all available options strategy instead of a F-everything but green strategy
Have I missed where there have been public service announcements about the increased risk that obesity, smoking, and heart disease incur? Any anti-fast food and sedentary lifestyle messaging? No new vaccine technology, basically nothing with therapeutics since monoclonal antibodies.the vaccine is a miracle and Godsend but it's also a crutch - take our eyes off therapy, take our eyes of things people should do to boost their immune system (is there any .gov communications about about anything but vaccines), take our eye off how to deploy resources.
it's like energy policy - it should be an all available options strategy instead of a F-everything but green strategy
They don’t, though. One is a comparison between the negative effects on the heart with the vaccine vs infection in a certain population. One is a specific concern given a specific situation for a specific demographic. The last was a question about a specific side effect of vaccines in general.Your line of questions assume absolutes of being vaxxed or never having covid. How about the ones who have recovered? Wouldn't it be logical that the risk to vaccine side effects are higher than that of reinfection and it's effects? Why is that always ignored?
Curious that media never mentioned or pushed better health. Same with politicians or pharma. Hmmmm
The red women is a retired Cath Lab nurse.the vaccine is a miracle and Godsend but it's also a crutch - take our eyes off therapy, take our eyes of things people should do to boost their immune system (is there any .gov communications about about anything but vaccines), take our eye off how to deploy resources.
it's like energy policy - it should be an all available options strategy instead of a F-everything but green strategy
Some of us have been saying that from the get-go. Look at schools that didn't shut down or gag the children. Look at states that reopened early and didn't impose harsh business or mask mandates. Look at countries that used a more measured approach. Where are they all now? Did kids die? Are Florida and Sweden seeing massive spikes in cases now and worried about the next Zeta variant? Now, look at the economy, loss of education, mental health, health in general. . . .Pretty much the opposite.
Hunker down, don’t go breath fresh air, stay in your basement, buy alcohol, eat terrible foods, etc.
We would of been better off to do the exact opposite of what was told to us in the beginning.
Except for 80+ year olds.
We have a society and a medical community that only wants medications or "magic pills" instead of encouraging lifestyle changes. Big Pharma and the medical professionals can't make any coin if you sheep eat right and exercise...The red women is a retired Cath Lab nurse.
She talks a lot about the people who take their meds so they can eat their greasy cheeseburger and wonder why their stints closed off.
That link does nothing to show it's worth getting the vaccine when you have natural immunity. It has:They don’t, though. One is a comparison between the negative effects on the heart with the vaccine vs infection in a certain population. One is a specific concern given a specific situation for a specific demographic. The last was a question about a specific side effect of vaccines in general.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but you’re talking about something completely unrelated. If you’re looking for information about being vaccinated after already being infected with COVID, this may help…
Should I get a COVID-19 vaccine if I've already had COVID-19? - Mayo Clinic
Setting the bar at speaking in absolutes about a novel virus and the subsequent vaccine is naive.That link does nothing to show it's worth getting the vaccine when you have natural immunity. It has:
1. A bunch of mays and mights
2. Doesn't link the study
3. And even admits "further research" is needed.
4. "Some scientists call this hybrid immunity. Further research is needed." lmao what is this ****?
In other words, they don't know. Some "scientists" disagree also. Looks like we are right back at square one on if it's worth the risk or not. And that, of course, is the point.
I had covid. Pretty sure it was delta given the timing. Made my BP sky rocket for a day and that was the worst of it. I'm not putting a vaccine in my body that can cause myocarditis given that info and my doctor agrees fully especially with all of the uncertainty surrounding it.
I really, really do. This overreaction will cause ripples of repercussions for a decade.Some of us have been saying that from the get-go. Look at schools that didn't shut down or gag the children. Look at states that reopened early and didn't impose harsh business or mask mandates. Look at countries that used a more measured approach. Where are they all now? Did kids die? Are Florida and Sweden seeing massive spikes in cases now and worried about the next Zeta variant? Now, look at the economy, loss of education, mental health, health in general. . . .
Anyone want a do-over?
When the expectation is absolute, it requires more certainty in convincing. This lacks that. That link was used as information to get it regardless of recovery. It presented 0 information but rather uncited opinions. "Some scientists", "further research is needed", "estimated", "might offer better protection", etc. I appreciate not being fed bull **** from Mayo. A class organization. But the uncertainty is enough to warrant understanding of hesitancy. Is that fair?Setting the bar at speaking in absolutes about a novel virus and the subsequent vaccine is naive.
I’m glad to hear you avoided the worst effects of the virus and glad you’re doing well.
If I go to a doctor, and a test comes back positive, but the doctor says it might or may still be something else or additional testing is now required, I dont think they recommend immediate action until they figure out that might or may.Setting the bar at speaking in absolutes about a novel virus and the subsequent vaccine is naive.
I’m glad to hear you avoided the worst effects of the virus and glad you’re doing well.
Then why the hell are we mandating the vaccine on a novel virus then? So let me get this straight... we shouldn't scrutinize the studies and data being presented nor should we scrutinize the efficacy of the vaccine?Setting the bar at speaking in absolutes about a novel virus and the subsequent vaccine is naive.