My dad had the same issue when he had a TIA a few decades ago. Fortunately my mom was there and insisted on another hospital (ie advocate for him as he was having difficulty speaking). My dad - a physician - knew which hospitals had better outcomes.
Have no idea why an EMT wouldn’t opt for Children’s when it’s reasonably near by. That truly is odd, especially considering that child’s situation. Not the same in our state but we might have passed a law respecting preference. I say that because throughout my kids’ early childhood, pre-K and K-12 education experience, as well as vacation bible school and local summer enrichment/camp, we were always able to designate a hospital preference in case of emergency. I have also filled out similar paperwork for myself regarding hospital preference (other than doctors’ appointments). I believe those all came with a disclaimer that the EMT’s can override depending on the situation. Sometimes, County with its top-notch trauma unit is indeed the best choice. Our kids’ own emergencies haven’t been as dire, thankfully, and Children’s has been the best choice for them. We’ve always specified Children’s even if other hospitals were closer. And I know in traumatic situations where multi generations have been involved, the adults will go to one hospital and the kids to one of the pediatric hospitals. That just makes sense.
This might depend on the nature of the emergency. I’ve been asked by EMT’s for hospital preference, but I was conscious at the time and not in any apparent distress. (ETA my sister in law had an attack of SVT that was so severe she pulled over to a local fire station. They had EMT’s there who performed an EKG then took her to the hospital of her choice which was Northwestern Memorial. This was in Chicago).
Had I or my sister-in-law been in a severe auto accident or something - or found to be unconscious - that would be a different story.
yes, of course, it depends on the nature of the emergency (and the distance to the hospitals’ ER’s AND their level), and it’s all spelled out in your local Emergency protocols. (Head injury goes here, broken leg could go there, shock-trauma goes to Level x…)
I think the rule was the ambulance goes to the closest hospital with an ER (and capacity). The closest was less than 2 miles (and under 5 minutes) but Children’s was 8-10 miles across city streets, probably 20 minutes. Lots of other hospitals along the way too. This child wasn’t bleeding and was talking (boy, could this kid talk) and there were 2 nurses there (daycare had a program for 10-12 medically needy kids, with, ironically, Children’s Hospital supervising) but the EMTs are either city employees or through a private company, and rule was go to the nearest hospital.
Our friend in this program preferred a different hospital to Children’s, so I can see where the EMTs and the day care staff didn’t want to get into it with every parent. Just go to the closest one.
I think we’ve discussed EMS procedures enough. Short answer is that it seems to depend on your area.
I played golf in a league this summer and met a person who is very anti vax, she’s overweight with limited mobility. Her argument is that people aren’t being treated soon enough after they contract Covid.
I refuse to have anything to do with this woman. She goes on and on about her position and refuses to listen to any other arguments.
But I golfed with some other friends who continue to do things with this woman. A good friend of mine rode in a car with her and her husband, played golf and went to dinner. I just don’t know how people do this. I’ve reached the end of my rope, I’m just so tired of being the one who did the right thing and refuse to continue to ignore those who are putting the rest of us (and them) in peril
We have only one person in our small neighborhood who is not vaccinated, and doesn’t intend to get vaccinated. Her husband and kids are. Neighbors have already decided that IF we have any indoor things this year, she won’t be invited. If she needs a ride someplace…none of us will have her in our cars. She is also anti mask🤦🏻♀️
I attended a wedding in August overseas, which was primarily all outdoors, though we were all indoors eating dinner for about an hour. My husband and I just decided that this wedding wasn’t worth missing (hadn’t been with whole family for well over ten years) and almost all, AFAIK, were vaxxed. We took a leap of faith and all was well.
I also just returned from a big OOS party with my family. That was a different story, because a number of people there are strong antivaxxers. I stayed outside as much as possible and when I was inside, yes, I wore a mask unless I ate or drank. I was one of three people who did. I flew on two planes and also spent a day at Disneyland, which was VERY strict about masks in any indoor space. Waiting to see if anything happens, but I’ve been back for two days now and feel fine. Fingers crossed.
I think covid is here to stay. We have to live life. I’m just taking it all case by case. I carry a mask in my handbag or pocket at all times and use it. I would have very much regretted missing either the wedding or the family party as both were extremely important occasions. I hope I don’t get covid, but I also feel it’s mentally unhealthy to miss out on life. I’m vaxxed and will get a booster when I am able to do so. I will continue to be cautious, but I guess I am okay with taking occasional risks.
“Booster” or 3 dose regimen reluctance sure to result for many. More confused messaging unfortunately leads to greater skepticism and fewer people getting vaxed.
It’s not clear yet that a 3 dose regimen is necessary for most people. Other bodies - CDC included - need to weigh in on the data presented. If and when a booster is approved for Pfizer (and eventually Moderna), then there will be a priority ordering as there was for the vaccines originally so most won’t be able to jump right in and get boosted anyway. It would be nice if there were always undebatable pronouncements surrounding matters of infectious disease, but unfortunately science doesn’t work that way.
The vaccines were approved 10 months ago now. I think most people have made up their mind as to whether they want to be vaxxed by now. They might be further persuaded by employment, school, or other mandates, but I don’t think the anti-vax crowd cares whether it is 1, 2, or 3 or more shots.
This ambiguous and often conflicting messaging in which the White House has called for “boosters” for all starting next week, the FDA and CDC publicly question the need for “boosters” and the pharmaceutical companies saying efficacy is based on a 3 shot regime to include shot, plus 1 month, plus 8 month makes it extremely challenging for employers and schools to enforce mandates.
I agree the hard core vax resisters will likely only get vaxed if compelled by a school, travel or workforce mandate.
That is why this ambiguity and potential conflict with the “follow the science” mantra is so destructive. The booster discussion is now as much political as it is science based. Forcing people to conform to politicians demands only emboldens those who resisted the informed advice of scientists and doctors. It in essence reinforces their suspicions and fears.
Dr. Ahish Jha the Dean of Public Health at Brown University stating he believes the data only supports the most vulnerable getting boosters. Do I believe him or Jen Psaki who apparently embellished when on 9/8 she stated “Our health advisors have recommended additional booster shots and we are working to implement them”.
Which standard do you hold students and employees to…the FDA or the White House or the manufacturers? The very existence of such a question undermines public health and confidence.
Once again we should expect and demand better communication and consistency.
Talked to my son last night and one of his friends finally got his first shot yesterday. This kid believed the vaccines didn’t do anything so there was no point in getting one. But, their college locks you out of university buildings if you are unvaccinated and don’t get tested every week. The kid did get tested but somehow the test result didn’t get entered into the system correctly and he couldn’t go to class yesterday. He decided to give up and just go get the shot. So, there you go. If you make life difficult enough for those that aren’t vaccinated, they may just give in and do it.
I don’t think there is any difficulty in enforcing mandates, regardless of the booster issue. Many employers already are doing so, and cities such as SF are enforcing it to gain entrance to restaurants and similar spots. Getting the populace fully vaxxed is the goal; those who want or need extra protection can get boosters. Most will get vaxxed if it becomes too difficult not to be vaxxed.
I hope you are correct but it is proving to be a challenge for many businesses. We are enforcing it in NY as well, but the booster issue looms large.
We have a significant number of employees who got vaccinated as soon as possible early last year. Consequently they are approaching a period where they are getting conflicting messages on the effectiveness of their original vaccines and or the need for a booster. Do we allow them back in the office? What’s the cut off dates? Do future employees have to commit to a 3 shot regimen? Do we need to keep and account for when the vaccinated who are in the office become vulnerable and bar them from continuing until they get a booster? The list goes on.
My point being we don’t need the White House front running the scientists suggesting the entire population of people who are vaccinated need a booster because the original vaccine they took has diminished and unsafe efficacy after 6 months. Not a great message if backed in full by science (but appropriate). A reckless and destructive message when not backed by science as appears to be the current case given the position of CDC, FDA and other health authorities.
Getting it right should matter regardless of political party. Particularly when the disease will likely mutate and the science will evolve and the already skeptical American people will be called upon to take variant specific boosters.
I understand all of the potential questions, but right now this isn’t difficult…anyone who has received the full vaccine regimen and is two weeks out from the second (or first for JNJ) shot is considered fully vaccinated.
More will become clear at the FDA meeting today re: Pfizer’s booster/third shot regimen. Today’s meeting will have zero impact on Moderna or JNJ boosters…so anyone with two Moderna shots and one JNJ shot is fully vaccinated.
I agree that front-running is never a great idea – we do want the science to lead. However, my guess is that the Israeli experience will be replicated and we will go for boosters in the not too distant future and that we will need specialized boosters later on to deal with mutations. My further guess is that the only people who will really be affected by the jumping of the gun are the folks who are looking for ammunition to avoid vaccines in the first place. If that’s true, the over-eagerness will not prove to be all that harmful – they were going to resist in either case. Y
@Catcherinthetoast, I think you are saying that the vast bulk of the American people are skeptical of the vaccine. That is not consistent with what I see. Here is an interesting survey, which shows skepticism but not for the vast bulk of the country.
The logistical issues in implementation / enforcement would have been the same without the jumping of the gun.
The big problem is actually political. It will be used by those folks to attempt to further weaken public confidence in government generally and science particularly. Overall, neither the front-running or the harping on it for political purposes are good for the country.
I agree, @shawbridge. I think the larger question is whether the FDA is actually able to respond appropriately to a public health crisis. There have been enough missteps in this one that I am beginning to doubt it’s ability to do so. Perhaps it is better suited to just routine, non urgent approval of new medicine.