COVID EO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by newest Sort by date
Yes, and what will the impact on the economy be if there is some kind of mass exodus of workers across the country who do not want to get vaccinated.

I assume they will have an option to be tested weekly, but if they are fired would the unemployment rate jump to double digits again?

No politics, please. Looking at it from the economic standpoint and how it will impact the TSP funds.
 
Right now there are some 80 million not vaccinated. Even if this "idea" succeeds in getting 40 million vaccinated, that still leaves 40 million potentially facing unemployment.
 
Just doing some math here, the EO quoted at the beginning of this thread only applies to Federal employees which is 2 million Civilians and another 2 million military? The order that applies to employers with over 100 employees would bring in another 100 million employees but the majority of those are vaccinated already (I am guessing quite a bit higher than the 64% in US fully vaccinated). So of the 80 million not vaccinated, this EO is only going to cover about 30 million in my estimate (I actually think it is less than that). But we may see some employers who are not covered by the EO, start mandating it as well. When faced with the choice of getting the shot or losing their job, I am guessing that most will choose their job, even if they really don't want to get the shot. Not sure how those numbers impact the economy. Will be tough to track unemployed due to no shot numbers though.
 
I think most will choose their job also. My nephew who was opposed to the shot was mandated by his employer and he decided to get the shot because he said “I need to eat.”
 
I thought these stats were interesting, although I don't know the source.

We can make some assumptions based on the numbers as far as where gov't employees might fall on the graph, but the PhD figure is interesting. Are doctors employers or employees? :)

vaccine_hesitancy.gif
 
I don't know how this will impact the US workforce overall but, I've though about this a good deal over the weekend. My situation, 61 years of age, currently receiving FERS retirement, and have been working part-time as a government contractor for mental stimulation over the past 4 years. I've been vaccinated but will refuse to produce documentation for anyone demanding proof of my vaccination status including my employer, and any business or venue requiring the same for admittance. Something about those 31 years of annual training reminding me that medical records are 'protected information'. I'd rather get fired and collect unemployment than show my 'working papers' to the gov'ment overseers. The bills are paid and I suppose I can find other ways to entertain myself.
 
The source was a Facebook study in which the researchers admit that it appears many of the reponses were unlikely to be valid. It is not peer reviewed yet and the researcher herself indicated: A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.
“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”

https://www.wnct.com/news/north-car...-claims-about-vaccine-hesitancy-among-ph-d-s/
 
So are they are saying there was some type of conspiracy to throw off the results of a Facebook survey because results were not what they expected?

"they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level."
I can think of several valid reasons why both groups could be more hesitant about taking an experimental "vaccine"

I would be more interested in a valid survey (not one from Facebook) of medical professionals' hesitancy re: COVID mRNA shots.
https://calmatters.org/health/coronavirus/2021/08/california-nurses-shortage/
“California’s nursing shortage: The state’s new vaccine mandate for health care workers is already causing headaches for understaffed hospitals before it is even implemented. Some traveling nurses — who are in high demand nationwide — are turning down California assignments because they don’t want to get vaccinated.”
With shortages of Nurses & Doctors across the country, can you imagine what impact even a small percentage reduction due to the mandates will have on our health care system?

flalaw97 said:
The source was a Facebook study in which the researchers admit that it appears many of the reponses were unlikely to be valid. It is not peer reviewed yet and the researcher herself indicated: A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.
“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”

https://www.wnct.com/news/north-car...-claims-about-vaccine-hesitancy-among-ph-d-s/
Click to expand...
 
Both, but I believe more and more doctors fall into the employee category, working for hospitals or large medical clinics. Some are hired as contractors or traveling doctors.
tsptalk said:
I thought these stats were interesting, although I don't know the source.

We can make some assumptions based on the numbers as far as where gov't employees might fall on the graph, but the PhD figure is interesting. Are doctors employers or employees? :)
Click to expand...
tsptalk said:
vaccine_hesitancy.gif
Click to expand...
 
evilanne said:
So are they are saying there was some type of conspiracy to throw off the results of a Facebook survey because results were not what they expected?
Click to expand...

Not because it wasn't expected but because there were responses that were all at the extremes. Note the "survey" was done on Facebook starting on January 6 and continuing through May. The response rate was much higher at the beginning of the survey and most importantly to me:

People taking the survey were on the honor system, with no way to make sure people who claimed to have Ph.D. degrees actually have them.
And the Ph.D. group does not include medical doctors or nurses.
“So it’s not representative of the medical profession,” King said.

I am not saying that I doubt that some highly educated people might be hesitant to get the vaccine, just that this "study" isn't what I would rely on to come to that conclusion.

I agree that a survey of MDs and RNs might be more valuable.
 
Not to mention, not all PhD's are created equal. I'm sure that there is a large sector of our nation who believe PhD's are all medical doctors, which is not remotely accurate.

flalaw97 said:
The source was a Facebook study in which the researchers admit that it appears many of the reponses were unlikely to be valid. It is not peer reviewed yet and the researcher herself indicated: A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.
“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”

https://www.wnct.com/news/north-car...-claims-about-vaccine-hesitancy-among-ph-d-s/
Click to expand...
 
Here is more detail on the survey: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2021-06/physician-vaccination-study-topline-report.pdf

For those with statistical backgrounds, is 301 sample size for a population of approximately 900,000 doctors adequate?

I'm skeptical of anything from the AMA, CDC or FDA these days with anything related to COVID. All do not promote any early treatment (inexpensive drugs like Budesinide, HCQ or Ivermectin have been censored or vilified in the press). Frontline doctors were attacked & censored when they tried to raise a red flag and if you go to the hospital with COVID their protocols will put you the expensive Remdesivir protocol and ventilator where you are more likely to die. Follow the money.
FireWeatherMet said:
Not sure bout those with PHD's in Philosophy, Political Science, Art History, etc...but for MD's, over 96% are reported to be fully vaccinated (this was in June, the number is likely even higher now).

AMA survey shows over 96% of doctors fully vaccinated against COVID-19

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-cent... 11, 2021,in vaccination rates across regions.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure they're going to get an overwhelming amount of volunteers for this collateral duty. Will they really fire some "contractor" who's working deep cover on a case overseas over this?

Covered federal contractors and subcontractors must be vaccinated against COVID-19 and show proof of it by December 8.

Contractors must designate someone to coordinate the implementation of and compliance with the mandate. Covered contractors must show proof of vaccination. “An attestation of vaccination by the covered contractor employee is not an acceptable substitute for documentation of proof of vaccination,” said the guidance.
Click to expand...

https://www.govexec.com/management/...ust-show-proof-vaccination-december-8/185602/
 
evilanne said:
Here is more detail on the survey: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2021-06/physician-vaccination-study-topline-report.pdf

For those with statistical backgrounds, is 301 sample size for a population of approximately 900,000 doctors adequate?

I'm skeptical of anything from the AMA, CDC or FDA these days with anything related to COVID. All do not promote any early treatment (inexpensive drugs like Budesinide, HCQ or Ivermectin have been censored or vilified in the press). Frontline doctors were attacked & censored when they tried to raise a red flag and if you go to the hospital with COVID their protocols will put you the expensive Remdesivir protocol and ventilator where you are more likely to die. Follow the money.
Click to expand...

Statistically as long as the survey size is "random", 30 is enough to draw conclusions with a high degree of confidence.
One of the few things I remember from my college statistics class.
And if one doesn't believe the CDC, AMA, FDA, then you're skeptical about the best information out there, and probably fall prey more easily to fake internet viral "sources".
 
This will not hold up, and will be challenged in court - but it will be fait accompli.

Without passing judgement on the value of the COVID-19 shot (I got mine, so that is where I stand), nor passing judgement on the validity of the Federal Government enforcing the mandate via OSHA and other regulatory means, I can say that companies will use the mandate as cover to force their employees to get the shot. They will just say in their best 1968 Hippie Accent - 'Man, the system made me do it...'. You do know that the 1968 hippies are now 'The System' don't you:laugh:.

Folks will get the shot before they lose their job. Also, they will prefer the shot to getting cotton swabs stuffed up their nose and into their brain cavities on a weekly basis. In the end, enough folks will get jabbed that we will get herd immunity.

I'm just kinda hoping that the Gubmint and the private sector will be smart enough not to force this on the millions of folks who survived COVID but never got the shot - why should they bother with the shot.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Statistically as long as the survey size is "random", 30 is enough to draw conclusions with a high degree of confidence.
One of the few things I remember from my college statistics class.
And if one doesn't believe the CDC, AMA, FDA, then you're skeptical about the best information out there, and probably fall prey more easily to fake internet viral "sources".
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding. I don't remember much from my college stats class but I thought it was more of a percentage based on population. I don't know about surveys & polls
It looks like less than 20% of doctors actually belong to the AMA (https://www.physiciansweekly.com/is-the-ama-really-the-voice-of-physicians-in-the-us or https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/ama-represents-only-about-one-sixth-all-doctors/ )
There is some very good information out there from the CDC & FDA. I do question that they are telling people who have recovered from COVID with natural immunity to get the EUA vaccine, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of immunology.
I'm not a boomer so I guess am more skeptical of the Gubmint, so I tend to question everything when something doesn't make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk: Can stocks rally if yields spike?
Replies
2
Views
1K
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk: The Bulls Have a Day
Replies
0
Views
556
tsptalk
tsptalk
NewsFeeder
Recoveries Top 100,000; Trump Wants U.S. Reopened: Virus Update
Replies
0
Views
250
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk: Pension rebalancing punctuates bad week
Replies
0
Views
688
tsptalk
tsptalk
NewsFeeder
Wall Street Forges a New Deal With Data in Coronavirus Age
Replies
0
Views
238
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
Back
Top