Rocky

NEW YORK, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Jennifer Bridges loved her job as a nurse at Houston Methodist Hospital, where she worked for eight years, but she chose to get fired rather than inoculated against COVID-19, believing that the vaccine was more of a threat than the deadly virus.

The reasons behind the health care workers’ vaccine hesitancy were varied, with the most common reasons cited being how quickly the vaccine was developed, insufficient safety and effectiveness data, a disbelief that the vaccine would protect them from COVID-19 infection, and concerns about serious side effects. Nurses were much more likely than physicians, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants to be vaccine hesitant. Physicians were almost uniformly in favor of the vaccine. Other staff who don’t provide clinical care, such as food service workers and security personnel, had higher rates of vaccine hesitancy. Respondents who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were more likely to be vaccine hesitant, as were women and Black employees. Dr. Abram Wagner, a member of the team that sent out the survey and a U of M research assistant professor of epidemiology who studies vaccine hesitancy, previously noted that systemic racism in health care can cause deeply rooted mistrust of the health care landscape and can deter people of color from pursuing the vaccine. In total, about 29 percent of the study’s respondents reported at least one concern with the COVID-19 vaccine — including about 21 percent of those who had gotten the vaccine or were planning on getting it. This, Moniz said, is especially important to note because it suggests that people who are currently vaccine hesitant could be persuaded to get a vaccine. “It suggests there’s a spectrum of beliefs here, and we can help move folks along that spectrum to where people who have concerns may choose to get vaccinated,” she said. “That’s all the more reason to engage with folks and have honest and compassionate conversations that validate people’s concerns but strongly encourage folks to get vaccines.”

The point seems to be that public safety workers largely (but not exclusively) accept the responsibility for protecting themselves and the public. This would be in contrast to what a certain recently deceased friend of ours boldly proclaimed in contrast. Licensed health care professionals wouldn't be able to maintain their license if they defied masking requirements, it would seem obvious.

and Henderson said her concerns were largely fueled by the fact that D.C. fire personnel live in close quarters where they probably interact without personal protective equipment. She envisioned a scenario where an entire firehouse could be shut down, or severely stymied, because of an outbreak. In response to safety concerns, Jones pointed to the weekly testing requirement. “We’ve been serving safely and courageously throughout this pandemic,” Jones said. “We are currently testing. People are providing negative tests before they’re assuming duty.”

To your question, and unless moderators decide not to allow this to remain in the thread, here's the other side of the story regarding Washington, DC, from the Washington Post. Because I subscribe to WaPo, access to this news report should be available to anyone who clicks the link and they won't be charged or blocked from seeing it. The report cites religious exemption as the most commonly requested reason for a waiver of the vaccination requirement. Some of those are probably legit deeply held beliefs. But some of the are clearly just like adolescents who don't understand freedom doesn't come without responsibility. "Firefighters who are against the vaccine mandate say the exemption requests are a reflection of genuine expressions of faith that, for many, have grounded them during the difficulties of the pandemic. They also responded to safety concerns by citing unvaccinated firefighters’ adherence to the current weekly testing option, with the need to show a negative result to assume duty." and Norman Brooks, 37, a firefighter who has served for about 15 years and is a member of the group, said the mandate is a “violation of people’s basic rights.”

Congrats, Skyrider. I figure you are rightfully proud of him. Intuitively, it does seem that human nature is like that. Yet, I also suspect there are personal concerns at work for some who take issue with JALs legacy. On the surface, it does seem petty though I'm not sure irresponsible is a fair characterization, as those who may have been touched in a not so wholesome way by John's ministry might be reluctant to get specific publicly about those concerns. I don't know why nurses who refuse vaccination do so. But here's MY story. Or rather, a first cousin (once removed, she's in her mid-thirties and has been a covid ICU nurse since the pandemic started. SHE has felt great stress (and PTSD) over the many deaths she's witnessed and the patients she's attended (ministered) to. She doesn't understand why nurses would refuse the life-saving preventative vaccination. And she's very vocal about it. Family I visited in upstate NY in June, a sister, BIL, and two college-age nieces, all contracted covid infections in the fall of 2020. Obviously, that was before vaccinations were available. They recovered and got vaxxed as soon as they could. In a MIL unit attached to their house, my (half) sister's mother lives. She's in her 90s. She got vaxxed as soon as she could and has avoided infection. The information available from the CDC and the FDA is unequivocal regarding masks and vaccinations. Last Monday, I got the Pfizer booster. It wasn't a political decision. There has been some coverage of those resistant to what appears to be sound public health guidance. Those resisting, for the most part, do not seem to be basing their decisions on sound public health guidance. A close friend of mine, and his family, have a long history of avoiding vaccinations of all kinds. Their reasons are personal and I don't understand them. But they ARE friends AND they do not resist wearing masks to protect others. I agree that we have the right and responsibility to question authority, to a degree. I also value open discussion. I would turn the one sentence around: Healthy minds question. Not necessarily are all questioning minds healthy. But that's a discussion for another day.

That's why I asked you to clarify. Reading your most recent comments, you may have clarified the point some. OTOH, What Raf and Modgellan posted are valid points too. If I'm understanding you, you don't like that anyone is criticizing JAL and his years of Christian service at this time, regardless of how anyone has addressed their points about him, even though no one has said anything for personal gain or to protect themselves from emotional or organizational harm. Does that reflect what you intended to communicate?

Exactly.

That, I don't think, was the discussion subject.

Was it not really about the self-justification VP and Loy and others needed when they got someone pregnant out of wedlock?

Seriously?

I disagree. This thread progressed to directly address how and why what has been posted about JAL's legacy is NOT character assassination. Directly addressed your issue and concern in the context of the contemporaneous issue at hand. If I recall correctly, you expressed concern over the TWI practice of character assassination, which we know (understand) took/takes place whenever the cult organization feels threatened by someone or something. If I read your concern incorrectly, please help me understand better. Thank you.

Those are deplorable incidents. What has come up this week regarding JAL's legacy are clearly unrelated to that kind of conduct.

I'm not understanding what you're getting at. Those people have neither passed away nor publicly proclaimed any particular controversial perspective. What am I missing here?

The question I intended to ask wasn't "relatively speaking." The question I asked was a response to this statement you (old skool) made. If you meant something different, please clarify. You also said, "On the other hand, respectful discussion of his view points and advocated positions is fair game and I am more than willing to delve into any facet of what he publicly taught. " Is that not what was taking place when you took issue with posting the video of JAL?

That's the nugget in this discussion. A situation which, with emotional health and maturity called for compassion for the person's family, was made all about them. Hence, apparent evidence of the cultic and narcissistic nature of the organization..

To this point you made, brother, I don't see the current situation as analogous to what twi would do to go into attack mode to "protect the ministry" from blame. Which twi practice obviously is sinister and narcissistic. It's also difficult, based on the timing of JALs passing and this discussion arising, to separate the two. I'd welcome your further insight on issues surrounding the twi practice.

I personally see nothing in your post that would warrant any censorship. It's cogent and on topic, at least for the subject person whose passing brought the issue to the fore.

JAL was not, except to long ago ex-twi followers, a public figure. I have not read anywhere that he has been cited by politicians or mass media. Do you understand otherwise?

It also occurs to me to wonder whether when this happens in twi, they point people to video of the person boldly proclaiming that which they disapprove of. Is character assassination vs calling attention to specific words behavior at all parallel to teaching children that what they do is unacceptable as opposed to saying they are bad children?

I don't disagree that it's worthy of discussion. I want(ed) to clarify that the sharp division on the JAL legacy thread was not and is not the same as the character assassinations you referred to. John's character and integrity certainly were not my target in any of my comments even though I can easily disagree with and criticize the content of his teaching. I also look forward to hearing from others on this topic.

Skyrider, Is this about critiquing JAL's legacy and his words as he posted (or approved posting) them on YouTube? If so, how long should one wait before calling out what amounts to, in the view of many, insane mythology that happens to put an indeterminate number of people who accepted his words in harms way right now? I still have fond remembrances of JAL. But his words were often not innocuous.

Includes saildrone video footage inside Hurricane Sam https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/09/30/hurricane-sam-saildrone-video-waves/

Come to think of it, while I was in tech school in Biloxi, MS, I also remember longing for a closer relationship with/knowledge of God. I was in that frame of mind. That was in the Fall of 1973. Got stationed overseas in the Spring of 1974. Met the guy from twi on Halloween 1974. He was confident and he promised what I was looking for. He had happened in on a small group meeting (fellowship) in the Base Chapel.

Was he a cousin of Charles Nelson Reilly?