Vaccines drastically reduce hospitalisation. That frees up medical resources for everyone, especially those who aren't vaccinated and those that need care.
We are already seeing medical procedures get postponed and hospital staff being pushed at the breaking point. The help to your community of being vaccinated is simply huge.
Vaccinated people are more prone to be asymptomatic when infected, which means they are less likely to notice the infection, thus less likely to isolate and go into quarantine.
This is made even worse by the fact how a whole bunch of countries have stopped testing vaccinated people, they are just assumed healthy and not contagious by default.
Now throw in vaccinated people demanding to be exempt from pandemic measures, like not having to wear masks anymore and being allowed into crowded venues, and vaccinated people have the biggest potential to become the new super spreaders.
By now that’s even become the main argument for vaccinations: Less hospitalizations due to less severe symptoms. While all the talk about “herd immunity”, the original most pushed reason for mass vaccinations, has turned out to be not realistic.
And in vaccinated people even that infectious phase is lower.
Do you know of a hospital system that’s overloaded in the way you are worried about? I’ve seen plenty of bloggers who talk about this, but they never seem to actually link to the data backing up their stories.
https://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/news/idaho-activates-cris...
And is absolutely overwhelmed. It seems incredibly disingenuous to only consider some random state that's doing well and ignore those doing poorly.
https://rationalground.com/hospital-and-icu-capacity-dashboa...
Also, if you go back in look for headlines of hospitals being overwhelmed, you will see they exist for the flu for almost every year as well.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/01/24/Hospitals-overwhe...
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/idaho.division.of.pub...
And Idaho is absolutely overwhelmed. In past flu seasons they have not moved to crisis standards of care, I don't even see Idaho in the article you linked so I'm not sure what relevance it has here. Are you claiming the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is unaware of their own ICU utilization status?
Based on the numbers and your original post, it doesn't seem to be a statewide issue. It is a localized issue of what seems an area covered by 10 hospitals.
The relevance is that hospitals having issues with capacity is not beyond the realm of normal.
You seem caught up in a narrative that this is not real, I urge you to consider the facts on the ground rather than fit things to your political views.
Thanks for yours and your input.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-alber...
During Canadas third wave hospitals were overwhelmed the point that people were dying while waiting for care.
In this case 6 patients died while waiting for cardiac surgery because the ICUs were overwhelmed dealing with Covid patients.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/covid-19-stay-home-o...
First of all, that's not total ICU utilization, which is the metric that should interests you.
Illinois, the state you cherry-picked, has only 508 ICU beds remaining out of 3127. That's one doubling away from disaster.
Here's an example of people dying because they couldn't find an ICU bed : https://meaww.com/ray-demonia-cardiac-failure-dies-icu-beds-...
Right now the US is at the cusp of disaster with 78% nationwide ICU utilization. As we've seen some states are at functionally 100% utilization and turning away patients.
Hospitals are businesses. They don’t just create tons of empty ICU beds and then never use them.
If you are getting your information from for profit blogs and magazines then I’d suggest doing a quick analysis on their motivations. Do you think they have more motivation to get you to click on their products, or more motivation to give you valid (but boring) information?
Most of the states (all? I’ve looked at a lot of them) have some for of data dashboard that will give you a better overview of this. I’d highly suggest checking those instead of twitter/blogs/etc. It might not give the data that you are hoping for, but that’s kindof the behavior that is the problem (seeking out blogs and magazines that confirm your priors)
78% may have been the past utilization, however nowadays use of the ICU removing COVID patients is around 60%. So clearly there has been some level of denial of care. And even then we are close to the breaking point.
I think you're not making the point you think you're making with that data. 78% utilization is a lot when a very significant part of that is from an infectious disease known to spiral out of control easily.
From a 2014 analysis:
>Issues pertaining to the utility, interpretation, and reporting of ICU occupancy measures were identified and there were indications that optimal ICU occupancy rates were around 70-75%
The hour long daily briefings rarely contain any new information and are nothing but pure ego and attention seeking.
Exactly like a movie star whose time is passing, you should bet they will do whatever it takes to stay in the spotlight and stay relevant.
The media and public create that public brand; the health rep is generally just doing their job. In my state, the relevant person happens to have a recognisable hairstyle. It's not like she has a PR team going out telling people to dress as her for halloween or parties, people just do things like that, then the media covers that, and people send the link around and on it goes. Given the intense reactions that are the norm around this pandemic, I'm sure she'd feel safer without that level of attention.
Don’t be surprised when the person you cite above who will “feel safer without that level of attention” suddenly decides to step back into the limelight seeking some higher office or elevated position.
Additionally, anything that incentivizes more people to get the vaccine will result in higher uptake, which benefits everyone in terms of lower overall spread and hospital usage.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/08/06/fully-v...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Finding 80+% protection against symptomatic disease and ~40% reduction in onwards transmission, from three different modelling groups.
Current data trends don't look so optimistic.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/22/latest-phe-data-shows-va...
For example, a care home in London recently held a trip, all individuals in attendance were 'double jabbed', and were required to bring a negative PCR test. The attendees were not allowed to board the coach if they did not bring a negative PCR test. Attendees also had their temperatures taken before bording the coach and were also asked about how they felt, and encouraged not to come should they even feel like they have any symptom/s. The next day, a member of staff tests positive.
Simply being double jabbed isn't a solution, because the vaccine, fundamentally, doesn't work the way you think.
Whilst a jab may remove some affects of Covid, it does not stop transmission; Covid can and will be passed from those who are vaccinated to vulnerable people regardless. This results in a quandry where advocating for proof of a negative test can not actually be proof of a negative test, and being double jabbed does not stop an individual from catching Covid and stopping them from suffering.
Forcing people to be jabbed is unethical; boys have been reported to be 6x more likely to suffer vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid. What groups are deemed more precious? Are our young boys worth sacrificing, or should we sacrifice those who's age is greater than the average age of death?
Excluding people from society because they are not willing to take a drug which is still experimental; The CDC may have approved it, but in the UK has not its approval is temporary and that lasts one year:(https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4759).
It also quite frightening to hear power hungry individuals advocating agency over anothers body; I find your comment regarding Texas ironic given the current abortion issues present, but perhaps you agree with that removal as well.
When rights are removed, they do not come back. we still remove our shoes when travelling through airport security. It is important that we consider the our actions and implications for the long term, not just the current political cycle.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/...
Daily deaths (which is the best proxy we have for hospitalization) is nowhere near any of the peaks we have had in the last year and a half.
If somehow deaths are down but hospital capacity is also down, that is the fault of the hospitals, not the vaccinated. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Why would deaths be the best proxy for hospitalization? Why don't you have actual hospitalization numbers?
This isn't true, though.
Compare June to September, total staffed beds is about even, total ICU beds grew somewhat, and usage of both jumped from about 80% to 88% for overall beds, and 90ish to 96% for ICUs (which is a bigger increase in use than it might seem because capacity increased)
If overall use increased 10% and covid users are 20% of overall and 40% of ICU, up from maybe 5% and 10%, it seems there are a lot of non-covid users whose care is being delayed or denied because of covid. There's some room for misleading statistical information, such as ICU patients in for something else that happen to have asymptomatic covid and are only tested because of other patients, but the difference in stats seems large enough to ignore that. Stats I've heard are that the vast majority of hospitalized covid patients in most states had not been vacinated, so it does seem useful to the person taking them, and by reducing the overall hospitalization rate, seem to have kept Texas within hospital capacity, if barely (I haven't heard stories of Texas hospitals running triage and tents in parking garage like some other states)
The vaccine reduces the chance you can get and transmit covid. 40-60% protection against infection, and even when there is a breakthrough case viral load declines faster than in an unvaccinated person meaning less chance and time to spread the virus to others.
> So why these vaccine mandates? Vaccine passports? Etc. Because people simply enjoy the act of getting to tell others what to do. Anybody who has ever interacted with an HOA will be familiar with this.
No, it’s because lots of people are literally dying. An HOA arguing with you over the color of your garage door or the height of your lawn is, at most, trying to protect property values or as you say just being a busybody.
So why did hospitals declare that they have no ICU beds available and that they are sending patients out of state?
> At least 53 Texas hospitals have no available ICU capacity, according to numbers reported to the federal government during the week ending Aug. 5. In Austin, five hospitals were at or above 90% of their ICU capacity during the same period, with two reporting no available ICU beds
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/10/coronavirus-texas-ho...
Those hospitals at 90%: what is their base load? The hospitals with no beds: what is their base load?
These things make very profitable news articles, but they don’t do a very good job of informing.
But you trust a dashboard more...
While you still can transmit COVID-19 if you're vaccinated against it, it's far less likely (the time during which you can transmit the disease is far shorter).
So while your statement might be technically correct, it is also very misleading.
> In fact, there is an argument for how over-vaccinating will be harmful to the unvaccinated.
What is over-vaccinating (and in a pandemic, no less)? And what is that argument you speak of?
If you are vaccinated you are less likely to get COVID, less likely to spread it at peak (except, apparently, with Delta) while you have it, and have a shorter contagious period (even with Delta).
So, yes, you can still get and spread it, but you are significantly less likely to.
I can win the lottery, but I probably won't. Don't think of it as black or white, binary, can/can't. Unless you talk about the probability of getting and transmitting COVID, and how vaccination reduces these, you will be making nonsensical statements like the one above.
And what’s the benefit or not getting it? As much as I despise cars you can at least go do something arguably beneficial with them. I think we should have fewer though because they do cause unnecessary deaths. But what is gained by not having the vaccine? If I have a car I can do something beneficial. If you don’t get the vaccine you can transmit the disease or wind up in the hospital and for what reason? Do you, or society get much pleasure from skiing? Seems like it. There’s an entire industry. Will there be COVID-19 resorts and YouTube videos showing who can get the sickest or something?
We do deprioritize smokers and drinkers BTW on the transplant list.
If I get into a car accident and you're across town, you're right, that doesn't affect you. Likewise, if I get COVID and you're across town, I can't infect you, so likewise, you're not affected.
However, if we're on the same side of town, and I get into a car accident, it could affect you because I might hit you. Likewise, if I get COVID, and we're on the same side of town, I could infect you.
You might protest that I could still infect you if I get COVID on the opposite side of town by infecting someone else who infects you. This is false. The person who actually infected you infected you. To claim it was my fault that you got infected means that we should all blame patient zero and China. I mean, we should blame China, but probably not patient zero.
If you had reasonable actions available to you (wearing a mask, getting vaccinated) that you chose not to pursue, then yes, in my view you do bear some responsibility for continuing the chain of infection. If you had taken those reasonable actions then you bear no responsibility: it’s an act of nature that the chain passed through you.
If everyone who could get the vaccine did get it, then it’s almost certain that 10’s of thousands of people would be alive today just in the US and hospitals would not be under strain. Who are responsible for those 10’s of thousands of deaths if not those who chose not to act to protect their own lives and their communities?
You can choose your "freedom" over your life and your community, but you bear culpability for doing so. "Freedom isn’t free," as the saying goes.
If I get a vaccine and suffer an adverse reaction, should I receive blame for getting the vaccine? After all, since compensation for adverse reactions are paid for by society (the government), I failed to protect my life and my community, as you say.
By the way, hospitals have been under strain long before COVID. That's how they operate.
Also, if I get vaccinated and found get myself tested regularly, I could spread COVID. Is taking a test weekly to prevent spread as a vaccinated person a reasonable action?
Patient zero being the first person who contracted COVID-19? I wasn't aware that they had been identified.
> If I get a vaccine and suffer an adverse reaction, should I receive blame for getting the vaccine? After all, since compensation for adverse reactions are paid for by society (the government), I failed to protect my life and my community, as you say.
All of the evidence at this point is that the harms from getting vaccinated are orders of magnitude less than the harms from the disease. So no, you should not receive blame because you took the best action known to you at the time.
> By the way, hospitals have been under strain long before COVID. That's how they operate.
They are under strain now because of COVID, out of all proportion to the strain experienced in recent memory from any other cause.
> Also, if I get vaccinated and found get myself tested regularly, I could spread COVID. Is taking a test weekly to prevent spread as a vaccinated person a reasonable action?
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Yes, get tested if you are worried about being exposed to COVID, irrespective of whether you're vaccinated. Leading epidemiologists have long called for widespread rapid antigen testing to prevent asymptomatic spread.
They haven't. Neither can we identify with certainty who spread COVID to who. Yet you want to blame the unvaccinated.
> All of the evidence at this point is that the harms from getting vaccinated are orders of magnitude less than the harms from the disease. So no, you should not receive blame because you took the best action known to you at the time.
For those who might be at risk for one or more of the adverse events from the vaccine, or have already recovered from COVID, the best action would be to not get the vaccine. Yet you still want to put culpability on their shoulders. Your can't have it both ways.
> They are under strain now because of COVID, out of all proportion to the strain experienced in recent memory from any other cause.
They are under more strain, yes. How much of that is COVID, and how much is that hospitals are not willing to pay enough to stay staffed?
> I don't know what you're trying to say here. Yes, get tested if you are worried about being exposed to COVID, irrespective of whether you're vaccinated. Leading epidemiologists have long called for widespread rapid antigen testing to prevent asymptomatic spread.
I'm saying that if it's reasonable to blame the unvaccinated for spreading COVID, it's also reasonable to blame the vaccinated who don't get tested weekly because getting tested weekly is, in your terms, a "reasonable action." In other words, if you think the unvaccinated are culpable, so are the vaccinated who don't get tested weekly.
If you claim that requiring the vaccinated to get tested weekly is not reasonable, then my answer is that neither is it reasonable to blame the unvaccinated. In fact, in my opinion, it's as reasonable as requiring weekly COVID tests. You and I would have different definitions of reasonable. We are not going to agree.
You want to blame me for COVID and to force me to conform to an orthodoxy that changes daily, and you call that reasonable. I want to be left alone and call that reasonable.
If you build in a system where the government can extract profit by not complying with their actions, what makes you think you wont someday find yourself on the wrong side of those actions?
Keep in mind, your side might not always be the one in control and once you hand over extra power to the government it's extremely rare for them to hand it back to you.
The vaccines are helpful to the recipient, but unless you are successful at completely shutting down travel to the rest of the world: not really that helpful to the people who haven't taken them. In fact, there is an argument for how over-vaccinating will be harmful to the unvaccinated.
If you're vaccinated, you can still get and transmit covid. You just don't get as sick. The vaccine protects you.
So why these vaccine mandates? Vaccine passports? Etc.
Because people simply enjoy the act of getting to tell others what to do. Anybody who has ever interacted with an HOA will be familiar with this.
The data shows that these do not have a positive effect, but the people enacting them enjoy it, and the people who have found themselves on the enforcment side of the political divide enjoy the feeling of righteousness they experience because of them.
I can’t reply to everybody making the same incorrect point. Here is the graph of Texas’s hospital utilization: https://covid-texas.csullender.com/
(Luckily Texas gives us great data!).
The graph here you are looking for is the one that shows the percentage of staffed beds and icu beds occupied. Notice that it is entirely flat.
Here’s a really interesting statistic that suggests even less effectiveness of these control measures: the vaccines appear to have had no effect on hospital utilization.