Another anti-vaxer dies

[Conservative_frk]

Medical freedom.

[Jezcoe]

@Conservative_frk

Medical freedom.

You don’t have a right to be a highly contagious disease vector.

[Conservative_frk]

I’m not

[toreyj01]

@Conservative_frk

@toreyj01

In medicine, we often give people options for treatment. For instance, in Cardiology if you have severe blockages you can either have open heart surgery or you can have stents implanted.

If you only have a single blockage a stent is a better option, but if you have 5 or 6 perhaps bypass is better.

But it is how you PHRASE the options that determine which procedure the patient often takes. If a Cardiologist says “We can send you for bypass where they will gut you like a fish and you will need a month of rehab, or we can just fix you now with a stent and you can go home tomorrow like nothing happened” the patient will choose the stent.

Or the Surgeon can stop by and say that stents will not add years to your life, but bypass will. And you won’t have to keep coming in for touchups. One and done.

The better path is always to be straight with the patient and tell them what they need to hear. One Cardiologist I know, if the patient needed bypass, would simply go up to them at the end of the case and say “You need bypass, I will come to your room later and talk about it”. And then…leave.

Doesn’t the patient have another choice?

Of course they do, the matter at hand is what is the best choice? If it is clear, be clear and concise with the patient because they trust you. Tell them the unadulterated truth and they will be better off. Giving them choices when one option is clearly in their best interest and the other is not should be precisely phrased that way.

In other words “This choice is clearly what you should do, the other option is clearly inferior and offers a significant risk to you. I would only choose this if it were me or if it were a member of my own family”. You can even go further and say “If you choose this other option, it is so potentially harmful that I will need to find a second opinion for you, or another Physician who might be willing to do it”.

You should never compromise your oath, do no harm.

[biggestal99]

@toreyj01

Of course they do, the matter at hand is what is the best choice? If it is clear, be clear and concise with the patient because they trust you. Tell them the unadulterated truth and they will be better off. Giving them choices when one option is clearly in their best interest and the other is not should be precisely phrased that way.

I had a detached retina. The doctor did not sugar coat it.

I have scheduled an emergency eye surgery in 2 hours.

I signed the paperwork then and there.

2 hours later I was under the knife.

I liked it that way.

Allan

[toreyj01]

@biggestal99

@toreyj01

Of course they do, the matter at hand is what is the best choice? If it is clear, be clear and concise with the patient because they trust you. Tell them the unadulterated truth and they will be better off. Giving them choices when one option is clearly in their best interest and the other is not should be precisely phrased that way.

I had a detached retina. The doctor did not sugar coat it.

I have scheduled an emergency eye surgery in 2 hours.

I signed the paperwork then and there.

2 hours later I was under the knife.

I liked it that way.

Allan

Precisely, that is how it needs to be done.

[biggestal99]

Yet another sad story

American anti-vaxxer dies 'suddenly and unexpectedly' after contracting COVID-19

40 years old. Tragic.

Allan

[Kelby]

@toreyj01

@Conservative_frk

@toreyj01

In medicine, we often give people options for treatment. For instance, in Cardiology if you have severe blockages you can either have open heart surgery or you can have stents implanted.

If you only have a single blockage a stent is a better option, but if you have 5 or 6 perhaps bypass is better.

But it is how you PHRASE the options that determine which procedure the patient often takes. If a Cardiologist says “We can send you for bypass where they will gut you like a fish and you will need a month of rehab, or we can just fix you now with a stent and you can go home tomorrow like nothing happened” the patient will choose the stent.

Or the Surgeon can stop by and say that stents will not add years to your life, but bypass will. And you won’t have to keep coming in for touchups. One and done.

The better path is always to be straight with the patient and tell them what they need to hear. One Cardiologist I know, if the patient needed bypass, would simply go up to them at the end of the case and say “You need bypass, I will come to your room later and talk about it”. And then…leave.

Doesn’t the patient have another choice?

Of course they do, the matter at hand is what is the best choice? If it is clear, be clear and concise with the patient because they trust you. Tell them the unadulterated truth and they will be better off. Giving them choices when one option is clearly in their best interest and the other is not should be precisely phrased that way.

In other words “This choice is clearly what you should do, the other option is clearly inferior and offers a significant risk to you. I would only choose this if it were me or if it were a member of my own family”. You can even go further and say “If you choose this other option, it is so potentially harmful that I will need to find a second opinion for you, or another Physician who might be willing to do it”.

You should never compromise your oath, do no harm.

I hear this “do your own research” crap from the vaccine hesitant and anti-vaxxers. I ask, who do you trust about your physical health, your physician, right? Ask them.

I then hear them assert that their doctor says the decision is up to them, supporting their hesitancy.

I find that hard to believe. This isn’t about getting a facelift or liposuction. It can be a matter of life and death.

I think the truth is the majority of these people don’t consult with their doctors, if they even have them.

[toreyj01]

@Kelby

@toreyj01

@Conservative_frk

@toreyj01

In medicine, we often give people options for treatment. For instance, in Cardiology if you have severe blockages you can either have open heart surgery or you can have stents implanted.

If you only have a single blockage a stent is a better option, but if you have 5 or 6 perhaps bypass is better.

But it is how you PHRASE the options that determine which procedure the patient often takes. If a Cardiologist says “We can send you for bypass where they will gut you like a fish and you will need a month of rehab, or we can just fix you now with a stent and you can go home tomorrow like nothing happened” the patient will choose the stent.

Or the Surgeon can stop by and say that stents will not add years to your life, but bypass will. And you won’t have to keep coming in for touchups. One and done.

The better path is always to be straight with the patient and tell them what they need to hear. One Cardiologist I know, if the patient needed bypass, would simply go up to them at the end of the case and say “You need bypass, I will come to your room later and talk about it”. And then…leave.

Doesn’t the patient have another choice?

Of course they do, the matter at hand is what is the best choice? If it is clear, be clear and concise with the patient because they trust you. Tell them the unadulterated truth and they will be better off. Giving them choices when one option is clearly in their best interest and the other is not should be precisely phrased that way.

In other words “This choice is clearly what you should do, the other option is clearly inferior and offers a significant risk to you. I would only choose this if it were me or if it were a member of my own family”. You can even go further and say “If you choose this other option, it is so potentially harmful that I will need to find a second opinion for you, or another Physician who might be willing to do it”.

You should never compromise your oath, do no harm.

I hear this “do your own research” crap from the vaccine hesitant and anti-vaxxers. I ask, who do you trust about your physical health, your physician, right? Ask them.

I then hear them assert that their doctor says the decision is up to them, supporting their hesitancy.

I find that hard to believe. This isn’t about getting a facelift or liposuction. It can be a matter of life and death.

I think the truth is the majority of these people don’t consult with their doctors, if they even have them.

I have talked to quite a few of these kinds of patients, and after a while, you honestly get to the point where you know no amount of talking is going to persuade them. They are entrenched. It actually goes beyond the fear of death, even the fear of losing a parent or a child or a spouse. Nothing else matters other than being right, even with people dying all around them.

And if they catch it and go through hell recovering, you won’t see them change their mind about vaccination. Nothing will.

So what is the point of talking to them?

To me, a lot of these people are lost causes when it comes to trying to get them to be responsible and considerate. It just isn’t going to happen. So in a lot of ways, we need to move past them.

That means mandates. You cannot access any form of public transportation without proof of vaccination. You cannot work at any job with more than 100 employees without it, you cannot teach or work in any field of health care without it. Get them isolated to the point they cannot harm us and perhaps some of them will grudgingly accede.

The rest can get bent.

Now, I do believe if you have had a prior documented infection, you should not have to be vaccinated. They do have immunity, perhaps not as good but perhaps more long lasting, we just don’t know yet. They aren’t the problem.

[Camp]

Bad link.

[biggestal99]

@Camp

Bad link.

'Unmasked, unmuzzled, unvaccinated' mother-of-four dies of COVID

Allan

[toreyj01]

@biggestal99

@Camp

Bad link.

Mother-of-four who was 'unmasked, unmuzzled, and unvaccinated' dies of COVID-19 at age 40 | Daily Mail Online

Allan

Unmasked, unmuzzled, unvaccinated, underground.

[biggestal99]

@toreyj01

Unmasked, unmuzzled, unvaccinated, underground.

And her 4 children. Unparented.

Allan

[Orygun]

@toreyj01

I have talked to quite a few of these kinds of patients, and after a while, you honestly get to the point where you know no amount of talking is going to persuade them. They are entrenched. It actually goes beyond the fear of death, even the fear of losing a parent or a child or a spouse. Nothing else matters other than being right, even with people dying all around them.

And if they catch it and go through hell recovering, you won’t see them change their mind about vaccination. Nothing will.

So what is the point of talking to them?

To me, a lot of these people are lost causes when it comes to trying to get them to be responsible and considerate. It just isn’t going to happen. So in a lot of ways, we need to move past them.

That means mandates. You cannot access any form of public transportation without proof of vaccination. You cannot work at any job with more than 100 employees without it, you cannot teach or work in any field of health care without it. Get them isolated to the point they cannot harm us and perhaps some of them will grudgingly accede.

The rest can get bent.

Now, I do believe if you have had a prior documented infection, you should not have to be vaccinated. They do have immunity, perhaps not as good but perhaps more long lasting, we just don’t know yet. They aren’t the problem.

Bears repeating. If watching your loved ones get sick and/or die isn’t gonna change your mind then nothing will. As you say- being right is more important that the fear of silicones and death.

[Guntsu]

There was already fertile ground with the anti-vaxx nutters which transcend party as it became political you had the unholy alliance of these anti-vaxxers and “freeberty” believers which has made it a hard nut to crack.

But slowly as people witness the effectiveness and greatly reduced chance of dying or becoming gravely ill the hesitation has been lowering.

[tnt]

Was this poor man posted? I scrolled up around the date of the article and didn’t see it.

Anti-vax radio host Marc Bernier has died after being hospitalized for COVID-19

What a shame.

[FlameHeart]

If only everyone was honest and had integrity…

[zantax]

@toreyj01

@Kelby

@toreyj01

@Conservative_frk

@toreyj01

In medicine, we often give people options for treatment. For instance, in Cardiology if you have severe blockages you can either have open heart surgery or you can have stents implanted.

If you only have a single blockage a stent is a better option, but if you have 5 or 6 perhaps bypass is better.

But it is how you PHRASE the options that determine which procedure the patient often takes. If a Cardiologist says “We can send you for bypass where they will gut you like a fish and you will need a month of rehab, or we can just fix you now with a stent and you can go home tomorrow like nothing happened” the patient will choose the stent.

Or the Surgeon can stop by and say that stents will not add years to your life, but bypass will. And you won’t have to keep coming in for touchups. One and done.

The better path is always to be straight with the patient and tell them what they need to hear. One Cardiologist I know, if the patient needed bypass, would simply go up to them at the end of the case and say “You need bypass, I will come to your room later and talk about it”. And then…leave.

Doesn’t the patient have another choice?

Of course they do, the matter at hand is what is the best choice? If it is clear, be clear and concise with the patient because they trust you. Tell them the unadulterated truth and they will be better off. Giving them choices when one option is clearly in their best interest and the other is not should be precisely phrased that way.

In other words “This choice is clearly what you should do, the other option is clearly inferior and offers a significant risk to you. I would only choose this if it were me or if it were a member of my own family”. You can even go further and say “If you choose this other option, it is so potentially harmful that I will need to find a second opinion for you, or another Physician who might be willing to do it”.

You should never compromise your oath, do no harm.

I hear this “do your own research” crap from the vaccine hesitant and anti-vaxxers. I ask, who do you trust about your physical health, your physician, right? Ask them.

I then hear them assert that their doctor says the decision is up to them, supporting their hesitancy.

I find that hard to believe. This isn’t about getting a facelift or liposuction. It can be a matter of life and death.

I think the truth is the majority of these people don’t consult with their doctors, if they even have them.

I have talked to quite a few of these kinds of patients, and after a while, you honestly get to the point where you know no amount of talking is going to persuade them. They are entrenched. It actually goes beyond the fear of death, even the fear of losing a parent or a child or a spouse. Nothing else matters other than being right, even with people dying all around them.

And if they catch it and go through hell recovering, you won’t see them change their mind about vaccination. Nothing will.

So what is the point of talking to them?

To me, a lot of these people are lost causes when it comes to trying to get them to be responsible and considerate. It just isn’t going to happen. So in a lot of ways, we need to move past them.

That means mandates. You cannot access any form of public transportation without proof of vaccination. You cannot work at any job with more than 100 employees without it, you cannot teach or work in any field of health care without it. Get them isolated to the point they cannot harm us and perhaps some of them will grudgingly accede.

The rest can get bent.

Now, I do believe if you have had a prior documented infection, you should not have to be vaccinated. They do have immunity, perhaps not as good but perhaps more long lasting, we just don’t know yet. They aren’t the problem.

And yet, virtually every mandate so far acts like they don’t exist or don’t have immunity.

[tnt]

@zantax

And yet, virtually every mandate so far acts like they don’t exist or don’t have immunity.

How do you prove it?

Are all cases the same in terms of lasting immunity?

IOW, if you test positive but are asymptotic, will you have the same immunity as a serious case?

[toreyj01]

@tnt

@zantax

And yet, virtually every mandate so far acts like they don’t exist or don’t have immunity.

How do you prove it?

Are all cases the same in terms of lasting immunity?

IOW, if you test positive but are asymptotic, will you have the same immunity as a serious case?

Precisely. I don’t think mandates should include those with documented infections, but why wouldn’t they seek hybrid immunity? One shot and they are in better shape than anyone. Stop being so pig headed and protect yourself.