Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge

[canpakes]

Another point here is that no vaccine gives immunity, even though, up until a few days ago the CDC defined vaccination as a means of providing immunity, where now, it is only protection.

Are you implying that the CDC was suggesting 100% protection with either wording?

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, in Ireland. I wonder what in Ireland is different than in the US:



I wonder why you left that out of your quotes? What is the percentage in the states that are experiencing overruns?

Gee, if 100% of adults were vaccinated, 100% of hospitalized patients would be vaccinated….

No one is saying that the vaccines are 100% effective. And some vaccinated people will die. But the evidence is that that the hospitals in the US are overwhelmingly overrun by unvaccinated people. Your “other evidence” from Ireland doesn’t contradict that in the slightest.

Here we go again, Res. Here we effing go.

I linked to the article, and the whole thing was available to you, obviously. Pretending to see something nefarious in me by pointing out what I did not quote is just too goshdang absurd for me to wrap my head around. You omitted everything from the article that you linked. Christ Jesus. Was that nefarious on your part? I have an issue with what you said, not an imaginary insight into your intent and the nefarious fibers of your being, bless your heart.

I have always said that if everyone is vaccinated then we would have zero cases of vaccinated persons in hospitals and of vaccinated persons dying. If you recall, that was not well received on this board. Though, admittedly, and I pointed that out, it was a trolling comment that was making the point about denominators and propaganda, not the vaccine.

I have made no suggestion that someone is saying the vaccines are 100% effective. Has anyone? Find another straw man to knock down, Res. Try to find one one made of more than a single piece of straw.

Obviously there is nothing deceptive about not quoting anything from an article. What is deceptive is lifting quotes from an article that gives the reader a false impression of what the article is saying. You presented the Irish article as if it some conclusion other than US hospitals are being overrun by unvaccinated COVID patients. But you chose to leave out the two facts that undercut your position: the 90% adult vaccination rate and the reduced hospital admissions. In doing so, you created a misleading impression of the article. That’s an issue with what you chose to quote and to not quote, not a statement on your intentions.

Yes, I agree that your earlier repeated comments about 100% vaccinations and hospitalizations were trolling. My recollection is that it wasn’t well received was that you used it to jump to unwarranted conclusions. Of course, it’s easy to revise your posting history when you erase the evidence.

You have both suggested and insinuated that the CDC claimed that vaccines were 100% effective before the COVID vaccines were released. That was the whole point of the suggestion that “breakthrough infection” was a new term — a suggestion made by Hades that you jumped on board with. It’s the whole point in your claims about the CDC changing definitions. And you suggest it every time you make the red herring argument that’s vaccinated people are getting infected and hospitalized even though no one has argued otherwise.

That’s not a straw man. That’s what you do.

[Res Ipsa]

Actually, what one can see is how easy it is for a motivated thinker to close his eyes to evidence. Cultellus has not shown that the hospital in question is engaging in unsafe practices. He simply made up the fact that an aerosol spreading procedure is occurring in a still photograph that doesn’t purport to show a procedure.

An aerosol spreading procedure is occurring? You are desperately making crap up at this point.

You clearly have never worked in an ICU, and google is letting you down. The protocols remain in place for up to an hour after the patient has left the room. As if the protocols in ICU only apply when someone is pumping the virus into the air. Un-effing-believable, Res. The absurdity is too much on this one. Terminal cleaning does not begin for at least 30 minutes, even in crowded settings. And, the staff doing the cleaning has to follow the same protocols as a nurse. You need to be right, Res. I get it. You need to smash any conversation that is not additive to your conclusions, I get it. But stop with your googled stupid nonsense.

The door is wide enough for the mechanical beds to pass through. At a minimum, probably over 40" wide. It is a sliding door. It was opened, and remains open while this picture is taken - or staged. Yeah. One or more of those people would have some explaining to do in this situation.

Ah, goalpost moving. What is your evidence that a procedure is occurring at the time the picture was taken? If, as you now suggest, the picture was “staged”, then the picture is not evidence of safety violations. And you still haven’t shown any actual profile that are being violated, even though I linked you to them. All you’re doing is playing “Cultellus says,” and, based on your track record, I have no reason to take stuff you say at face value.

I didn’t talk about terminal cleaning, but, since you raised it, which people shown in that room are not properly equipped for terminal cleaning, and link the standard that says so.

The only thing I googled is the applicable CDC standards. If you want to call those “stupid nonsense,” be my guest. They are the standards adopted by the Florida state health department. So, I suppose that’s “stupid nonsense, too.”

If you have such a profound mastery of the ICU COVID protocols, you should be able to link to them and to specify which parts the picture shows being violated. You know, instead of defaming the hospital’s ICU staff because you can’t face the fact that your spreading of FUD about vaccines is contributing to unnecessary disease, suffering and death.

Pop quiz: what is the shutter speed of the camera that took the picture?

[canpakes]

You cannot tolerate another point of view or a different conclusion. It is about winning, including winning by exhaustion, for you, but this post, quoted above, is way over the line. Go to hell, Res. Go straight to hell and have a beer with the late singer songwriter of your choice.

Wait, you supposedly have a point of view to share?

Great. I have two questions for you:

1. How is the vaccinated group faring, as compared to the unvaccinated group, with regard to deaths?

2. Are you implying that the CDC was suggesting 100% protection with either wording (protection vs. immunity)?

[Res Ipsa]

Obviously there is nothing deceptive about not quoting anything from an article. What is deceptive is lifting quotes from an article that gives the reader a false impression of what the article is saying. You presented the Irish article as if it some conclusion other than US hospitals are being overrun by unvaccinated COVID patients. But you chose to leave out the two facts that undercut your position: the 90% adult vaccination rate and the reduced hospital admissions. In doing so, you created a misleading impression of the article. That’s an issue with what you chose to quote and to not quote, not a statement on your intentions.

Yes, I agree that your earlier repeated comments about 100% vaccinations and hospitalizations were trolling. My recollection is that it wasn’t well received was that you used it to jump to unwarranted conclusions. Of course, it’s easy to revise your posting history when you erase the evidence.

You have both suggested and insinuated that the CDC claimed that vaccines were 100% effective before the COVID vaccines were released. That was the whole point of the suggestion that “breakthrough infection” was a new term — a suggestion made by Hades that you jumped on board with. It’s the whole point in your claims about the CDC changing definitions. And you suggest it every time you make the red herring argument that’s vaccinated people are getting infected and hospitalized even though no one has argued otherwise.

That’s not a straw man. That’s what you do.

Nope. Not true.

I have never said that the CDC claimed that the vaccines were 100% effective. I have not insinuated that they said that. I said they changed the definitions - which they did.

There was no suggestion that "breakthrough infection" was a new term. There was a question about when it was heard or used. Jumping on board, another subjectively interpreted metaphor, is not a good description of what I did or asked or said. I have not suggested any one specific thing every time I make a red herring argument. Ya know, what is interesting about the breakthrough conversation was not that pancake found a link to the 70s or that you found links to the 50s. It was that there was not a lot of discussion of breakthrough cases between late 2020 and early 2021, relatively speaking.

Res, you know what my issue is. We have discussed it civilly and thoroughly. I am sure I deleted my portion of the conversation, just as I will delete this post at some point. It all comes down to the same damn thing, over, and over and over, and over and over and over again. I accept your terms, and I will post accordingly. I will even follow the rules and etiquette for posting here. I will reject the things you say about me and about my posts that are not true. I am fine with that too.

Don't gaslight me, bro.

We all know how the "insinuation in the form of a question" game works. The only point of asking when the term "breakthrough infection" was first used is to insinuate it was a new term made up for COVID-19 vaccines. When you were first presented with evidence that it was not a new term, you simply ridiculed the person who called your attention to the evidence. It was, in fact, a question that didn't need to be asked at all, as the answer was at your fingertips. A simple google search returns dozens and dozens of scientific articles that use the term exactly as it is used with respect to COVID-19. Many articles use the term in the title of the paper.

Now, you're moving the goalposts to "It was that there was not a lot of discussion of breakthrough cases between late 2020 and early 2021, relatively speaking." That's simply false. From the earliest announcements of vaccine development, epidemiologists and other infections disease specialists discussed the two most significant unknowns about the vaccines under development: efficacy and duration. Lower than 100% efficacy and decline in efficacy over time are causes of breakthrough infections. You're confusing the use of the specific term "breakthrough infection" with discussions of vaccine efficacy. The issue is "how effective are the vaccines at reducing cases, hospitalizations and deaths," which doesn't require use of the term "breakthrough infection." Terms catch on with the public for all sorts of contingent reasons. That "polar vortex" is a term relatively new to the public doesn't mean that the meteorological phenomena it describes are imaginary.

No, Cultellus, I don't know what your issue is. I think your posting style is erratic and your posts are substantively all over the map. For whatever reason, you appear unwilling to describe your positions in straightforward, clear terms, instead resorting to statements that range from cryptic to gibberish. For whatever reason, you erase your posts, making it impossible to understand your position. When presented with evidence, you don't engage with it. Instead, you throw out red herrings to change the subject. I have no idea what your motives are, other than to conclude that these are not the behaviors of someone who wants to have a serious discussion on any given topic.

Yes, you keep talking about the change in definition. Are you willing to specifically lay out the conclusion you draw from that fact?

[Doctor Steuss]

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/cor ... 22908.html
9/15/21 Tri-City Herald, Kennewick, Washington
"Tri-Cities business leader spent 2 days in Idaho emergency room, waiting for ICU bed"
[...]

It appears that Idaho's Department of Health and Wellness has now expanded Crisis Standards of Care for the entire state as of this morning. They had activated CSC in the Panhandle and North Central Health Districts last Monday.

Here's a link to the newsroom article. Below is the text of the actual declaration (I can't seem to find a link that doesn't do a direct PDF download).

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
DECLARATION OF CRISIS STANDARDS OF CARE
ALL PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
DATE OF DECLARATION: September 16, 2021

The Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (the “Department”) is authorized by Idaho Code § 56-1003(3) to exercise general supervision and promotion and protection of the health of Idahoans. Further, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code § 56-1003(2), the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare approved the Crisis Standards of Care for Health Care Entities contained in IDAPA 16.02.09.
Crisis standards of care provide guidelines that help healthcare providers and systems decide how to deliver the best care possible under the extraordinary circumstances of an overwhelming disaster or public health emergency. The guidelines are used when there are not enough healthcare resources to provide the usual standard of care to people who need it. The goal of crisis standards of care is to extend care to as many patients as possible and save as many lives as possible.

Implementation of crisis standards of care (CSC) are meant to be a measure of last resort. Activation of the crisis standards of care means that all other options for addressing resource limitations have been explored.

The following conditions exists which support activating CSC:
Idaho COVID-19 hospitalizations, largely of unvaccinated individuals, continues to climb to record levels. The massive surge of COVID-19 patients has exhausted the supply of staff, available beds and necessary resources to adequately address the increased demand for healthcare services.

The Crisis Standard of Care Activation Committee (the “Committee”) convened on September 6, 2021 and recommended the activation of CSC in the Panhandle and Northern Central Health Districts (Districts 1 and 2) based on a request from Kootenai Health. Subsequently, CSC was activated on September 6, 2021 for Districts 1 and 2.

On September 15, 2021, St. Luke’s Health System (SLHS), the largest healthcare system in the state, requested the activation of CSC in accordance with IDAPA 16.02.09. SLHS reported a record 281 COVID-19 patients of which represents more than 50% of their 475 staffed adult beds. SLHS has opened 93 beds in non-traditional overflow areas. SLHS reported they had run out of physical beds and would be treating patients on stretchers until the additional beds they have ordered arrive. SLHS reported that of their 71 occupied ICU beds, 58 were COVID-19 patients. And of their 71 ICU patients, 63 were on ventilators. They further reported that all traditional ventilators were in use and that they were now using non-traditional ventilators such as pediatric ventilators for adults. Given the capacity constraints, SLHS is now treating some patients in traditional beds that would normally be in an ICU bed. SLHS had previously cancelled “green” surgeries and on September 15th canceled “yellow” surgeries which include removal of low risk cancers, fractures with pain and hernia repairs. Despite taking all necessary measures to prevent CSC, SLHS reported lack of adequate resources to treat not only COVID-19 patients but also other medical condition that may require hospitalization. The SLHS COVID-19 patient forecast indicates that in two weeks, SLHS could have 425 COVID-19 patients, meaning that almost every bed at SLHS would be occupied by a COVID-19 patient at that point.

The Committee convened virtually on September 15, 2021 and recommended to extend activation of CSC statewide.

Therefore, pursuant to IDAPA 16.02.09:
1. Crisis Standards of Care are activated statewide.
2. Healthcare entities may implement CSC as needed and in accordance to their own CSC policies.
3. Affected healthcare entities are recommended to consult with the guidance on Crisis Standard of Care Plan and the Patient Care Strategies for Scarce Resource Situations, both of which are housed on the state’s COVID-19 website, www.coronavirus.idaho.gov/idaho-resources/.
4. The Department and the Idaho Office of Emergency Management will continue to work closely with healthcare entities that have implemented crisis standards of care to receive resource requests and continue to pursue all options for obtaining those resources as urgently as possible.


IT IS SO DECLARED:
___________________ Dated: September 16, 2021
DAVE JEPPESEN, DIRECTOR
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Edited to fix date of first CSC for two districts]

[Res Ipsa]

You know, instead of defaming the hospital’s ICU staff because you can’t face the fact that your spreading of FUD about vaccines is contributing to unnecessary disease, suffering and death.

Technically, that is not a rule violation. And technically, hell is not a real place but if it was, I would love to go there and hang out in a Saloon with Townes Van Zandt. Go to hell, Res.

Well, "go to hell" is certainly a convincing argument. I'll keep that in mind as we explore the concept of "triggered" and "desperate."

You are clearly triggered and desperate here. Take a step back if you need to. I emphatically reject this horrible and awful suggestion. I work my ass off in this business, I take a lot of risks to make ICUs and hospitals safer for the patients, the staff and the community. You are wrong. Very wrong. You have no credibility with me. Go to hell.

Funny, I don't feel triggered. Or angry. Or upset. I would consider repeatedly telling someone to go to hell evidence of being "triggered." And I would describe someone who defames a hospital staff instead of admitting that they jumped to conclusions based on unreasonable assumptions as "disparate." You're asking me to take your word as sole evidence for a whole bunch of stuff. Credibility is earned, and you've been running an increasing deficit since you got here. You've given me no reason to take your word on anything having to do with COVID-19.

You need to make a point, and you are making it. You cannot tolerate another point of view or a different conclusion. It is about winning, including winning by exhaustion, for you, but this post, quoted above, is way over the line. Go to hell, Res. Go straight to hell and have a beer with the late singer songwriter of your choice.

And then we get to where you always get to: ad hominem well poisoning. I don't have to be right. I'm wrong and make mistakes all the time. I can and do tolerate different points of view. But I'm unapologetically intolerant of people who, like you have done since you have arrived, spread false and misleading FUD about COVID-19 vaccines. Both social media and traditional media are full of the stories of people who aren't anti-vaxxers, yet put off getting vaccinated because of doubts raised by exactly the kind of stuff you post here. And that leads directly to unnecessary disease, suffering and death.

If you're getting triggered by having to face up to the effect of your words, some soul searching might be in order.

[Res Ipsa]

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/cor ... 22908.html
9/15/21 Tri-City Herald, Kennewick, Washington
"Tri-Cities business leader spent 2 days in Idaho emergency room, waiting for ICU bed"
[...]

It appears that Idaho's Department of Health and Wellness has now expanded Crisis Standards of Care for the entire state as of this morning. They had activated CSC in the Panhandle and North Central Health Districts last Tuesday.

Here's a link to the newsroom article. Below is the text of the actual declaration (I can't seem to find a link that doesn't do a direct PDF download).

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
DECLARATION OF CRISIS STANDARDS OF CARE
ALL PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
DATE OF DECLARATION: September 16, 2021

The Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (the “Department”) is authorized by Idaho Code § 56-1003(3) to exercise general supervision and promotion and protection of the health of Idahoans. Further, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code § 56-1003(2), the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare approved the Crisis Standards of Care for Health Care Entities contained in IDAPA 16.02.09.
Crisis standards of care provide guidelines that help healthcare providers and systems decide how to deliver the best care possible under the extraordinary circumstances of an overwhelming disaster or public health emergency. The guidelines are used when there are not enough healthcare resources to provide the usual standard of care to people who need it. The goal of crisis standards of care is to extend care to as many patients as possible and save as many lives as possible.

Implementation of crisis standards of care (CSC) are meant to be a measure of last resort. Activation of the crisis standards of care means that all other options for addressing resource limitations have been explored.

The following conditions exists which support activating CSC:
Idaho COVID-19 hospitalizations, largely of unvaccinated individuals, continues to climb to record levels. The massive surge of COVID-19 patients has exhausted the supply of staff, available beds and necessary resources to adequately address the increased demand for healthcare services.

The Crisis Standard of Care Activation Committee (the “Committee”) convened on September 6, 2021 and recommended the activation of CSC in the Panhandle and Northern Central Health Districts (Districts 1 and 2) based on a request from Kootenai Health. Subsequently, CSC was activated on September 6, 2021 for Districts 1 and 2.

On September 15, 2021, St. Luke’s Health System (SLHS), the largest healthcare system in the state, requested the activation of CSC in accordance with IDAPA 16.02.09. SLHS reported a record 281 COVID-19 patients of which represents more than 50% of their 475 staffed adult beds. SLHS has opened 93 beds in non-traditional overflow areas. SLHS reported they had run out of physical beds and would be treating patients on stretchers until the additional beds they have ordered arrive. SLHS reported that of their 71 occupied ICU beds, 58 were COVID-19 patients. And of their 71 ICU patients, 63 were on ventilators. They further reported that all traditional ventilators were in use and that they were now using non-traditional ventilators such as pediatric ventilators for adults. Given the capacity constraints, SLHS is now treating some patients in traditional beds that would normally be in an ICU bed. SLHS had previously cancelled “green” surgeries and on September 15th canceled “yellow” surgeries which include removal of low risk cancers, fractures with pain and hernia repairs. Despite taking all necessary measures to prevent CSC, SLHS reported lack of adequate resources to treat not only COVID-19 patients but also other medical condition that may require hospitalization. The SLHS COVID-19 patient forecast indicates that in two weeks, SLHS could have 425 COVID-19 patients, meaning that almost every bed at SLHS would be occupied by a COVID-19 patient at that point.

The Committee convened virtually on September 15, 2021 and recommended to extend activation of CSC statewide.

Therefore, pursuant to IDAPA 16.02.09:
1. Crisis Standards of Care are activated statewide.
2. Healthcare entities may implement CSC as needed and in accordance to their own CSC policies.
3. Affected healthcare entities are recommended to consult with the guidance on Crisis Standard of Care Plan and the Patient Care Strategies for Scarce Resource Situations, both of which are housed on the state’s COVID-19 website, www.coronavirus.idaho.gov/idaho-resources/.
4. The Department and the Idaho Office of Emergency Management will continue to work closely with healthcare entities that have implemented crisis standards of care to receive resource requests and continue to pursue all options for obtaining those resources as urgently as possible.


IT IS SO DECLARED:
___________________ Dated: September 16, 2021
DAVE JEPPESEN, DIRECTOR
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE

Yes, and Billings, Montana has put the wheels in motion to do the same.

[canpakes]

I have never said that the CDC claimed that the vaccines were 100% effective. I have not insinuated that they said that. I said they changed the definitions - which they did.

We all know how the "insinuation in the form of a question" game works.

To some folks, there must be some indication of nefarious intent that the CDC updated a page on its website after three years, and after the event of a worldwide pandemic, complete with bad actors actively pushing baseless conspiracy theories about that pandemic … and false claims about vaccines, in an attempt to influence others from choosing that opportunity.

There was no suggestion that "breakthrough infection" was a new term. There was a question about when it was heard or used.

How about both? Hades calls it a ‘new term’, and you also asked when I would answer Hades’ question about “how long has that term been around and where did it come from?” -

viewtopic.php?p=43448#p43448

and

viewtopic.php?p=43558#p43558

and

viewtopic.php?p=43981#p43981


As you’ve been in the habit of demanding answers from others, can I ask for a couple from you?

1. How is the vaccinated group faring, as compared to the unvaccinated group, with regard to deaths?

2. What are you implying that the CDC was suggesting with either wording (protection vs. immunity)?

[canpakes]

You can pretend that the CDCs everchanging standards and definitions do not erode credibility …

More correctly, you can claim that.

How is their change of wording eroding credibility?

I am vaccinated.

You said that you must be, as a condition of your employment, yes?

I am not an anti-vaxxer.

If someone came to you today and asked your opinion on receiving a COVID vaccine, what would you tell them?

That ‘the vaccine doesn’t work’?