No, you both stated there was a healthcare provider “somewhere” who has seen a lot of Covid vax bad side effects, but they haven’t seen any bad Covid side effects. I (and several others) are curious where this is and neither of you will say.
Between contacts I have, my son has, cc has, and Google has we should be able to fact check to see if such a system exists. IME hospital systems report their Covid data. Which system out there has seen several bad vax side effects, but no bad Covid side effects?
I honestly don’t know how much clearer I can make it. It’s not tough to do.
I can come up with plausible possibilities that it’s a single provider who has no direct Covid experience, but I’m told it’s multiple providers so it should be a system. Multiple providers can still have no direct experience TBH. It depends upon what they do as a doctor.
I can also believe there are hospitals within systems that don’t see bad Covid cases because many places funnel them to specific hospitals more equipped to deal with the bad ones. Covid vax side effects aren’t nearly as bad, so could go to any hospital. If that’s the case, it in no way means what’s implied that people aren’t getting bad Covid effects in “X” area.
It could be what some of you are seeing and extrapolating incorrectly to everywhere.
You might be over-interpreting my posts and it’s very possible that your family is acquainted with better specialists than I am. For the record I have not had to fill out any recent history either for my primary or my specialists. Perhaps that’s because I am a regular patient with the same clinics. Keep in mind that a vaccine in someone’s chart doesn’t mean that the physician will necessarily connect it to something.
Let me clarify so that there is no confusion here:
I have not been informed as to whether my contact has seen “a lot” of bad Covid side effects. I suspect they have as they see a population that skews Latino/Latina (treating Covid isn’t their specialty but they would know test results and they also see many who go through the ED first). They prompted us on how to prepare for Covid in Feb 2020 - well before most had even heard of it - so they are up on Covid, I can assure you. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that they have told me about some very strange reactions to the vaccine - and, yes, they are asking. They believe there is a bias against reporting and are relieved that the CDC has started to take the myocarditis issue seriously. My viewpoint is not the same as this contact’s in terms of “intent” behind under-reporting (I argue the most common sense explanation: no one thought of it) but volunteered this information to provide the context behind vaccine-reluctance among some healthcare providers. The other information I have volunteered is that we are acquainted with heart problems in the wake of the vaccine from at least a couple other sources. One was an adult male in the hospital for a few days - they found nothing and no conclusion about the vaccine was reached per the patient (that might have changed in recent days, of course) and for the other the parent didn’t get the kid examined as it didn’t seem “urgent” enough (the mom regrets that now). Then another case of an adolescent with swollen neck glands following the first shot that haven’t gone away (it’s been over a month now). What the mom heard from the pediatrician is that it might be “permanent” (I suspect that’s not what the doc actually said). There is no need to provide the names of the system or the clinics. These are passed on to me in the course of many conversations I’ve had with people I know well. I have no reason to doubt them. Clearly, a good number involve people who have gotten the vaccine!
ETA: my contact has been repeatedly exposed to symptomatic Covid before the vaccine with no apparent illness. Perhaps that’s what you were thinking (NB: I think I posted that earlier). Not sure how often their system tests or whether tests are even required of the healthcare personnel or whether there is a vaccine mandate.
Thank you for your opinion on the quality of my healthcare but I tend to follow an outcomes-based model on that so any switch wouldn’t really have any basis in reality. It’s possible that others disagree but then this is internet-based advice and we all know how that can go . . .
interesting experiences about docs asking about vax status.
My personal anecdote: last week had a bad fall while in Palo Alto so I went to Stanford Hospital’s Urgent Care Clinic nearby. While the check in process did ask about typical symptoms (cough, fever, runny nose, have you been in contact with anyone who has had COVID, etc.), they never once asked about vax status…The intake PA and Doc did not ask either.
In my state, we can list our gynecologist as “primary care” so I would expect them to ask that question here. My obgyn providers would ask about vaccine status as would my IM provider.
Please do provide credible facts from verifiable sources.
@ganseliesel , yes, why should anyone post “information” here from non-reputable sources? If you’re going to post a link here to support any antivax claim, make sure it’s verifiable. Otherwise CC serves as yet another place for propagandists to push their harmful agenda.
Going all the way back to last year’s covid threads, CC mods made it clear that only reputable sources were to be cited. That makes sense to many of us, and doesn’t seem too constraining.
I for one would appreciate it if this thread moved on from suggesting/inferring that personal anecdotes = data, especially when it has nothing to do with vaccine reluctance (which is what this thread is about). Sure, share one’s personal experience and examples re: vaccine reluctance, then move on.
That wasn’t my point at all. My point is how quick people are to judge which is a ‘reputable’ source x one that isn’t. And “rely on a website in India”/ “crap from other countries”. Why? India doesn’t have reputable sources? That was my point. Reason why I said, totally unrelated to the current discussion.
I didn’t investigate NDTV (the source of the article I posted earlier) but it’s referencing a Lancet study, which I assumed would be acceptable. Also, who defines reputable? And unknown=non reputable?
The headline is misleading when you look at the study in detail - “far less effective” is not accurate. And why post an article from India, where you have to admit you DON’T know what you’re getting?
I’m bowing out of this thread now, because it frustrates me too much.
