Did you even read your own link? That is the lowest paid state in the country for nurses and they couldnâ(TM)t hire enough. Almost none of the firings were of nurses so youâ(TM)re trying to connect two unrelated things.

Second, you donâ(TM)t understand the dangerous consequences of when a patient comes into the hospital for something like a car accident and then catches Covid inside the hospital from a sick doctor or nurse. The payout from a lawsuit is enough to bankrupt a hospital, and it causes a shutdown as a large amount of staff have to be quarantined, and patients cannot be transferred due to the risk of others getting sick. This has happened in my hospital and the effects arenâ(TM)t over yet. Requiring Covid vaccines for staff is vital for reducing that risk as best as we can.

But they didn't. Nearly all of them were people not involved in patient care; custodial staff, EVS, accounting department people. Mayo Clinic stopped allowing less than 1% of their employees back until they get vaccinated. And this is a moot point, the problem is still a lack of beds.

>People made their choices, and they can now live or die with them.

Still doesn't change the fact that the morons have overwhelmed the hospitals. Hospitals operate on a first-come-first serve basis, when they are full there is no room for car accident or heart attack victims, and the survival rate of those goes way down. This affects YOU because you never know when you will need to go to one, and currently there's places with a 3 day waitlist in the ER to go upstairs.

It's open source so we can just fork the code.

Why speculate when Trump himself explained his rationale from the podium? He wanted big spending cuts to CDC and NIH and cut pandemic response staff from the national security council in 2018.

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...

"Some of the people we cut, they haven’t used for many, many years, and if we have ever need them we can get them very, very quickly. And rather than spending the money—I’m a business person. I don’t like having thousands of people around when you don’t need them. When we need them, we can get them back very quickly.”

Last Week Tonight did a special episode on how Sinclair is an evil organization
https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc

Iâ(TM)m not going to waste my time on someone so confidently incorrect. Talk to a pharmacist since you have such a mistakenly low opinion of what doctors know. Iâ(TM)m not going to convince you. Thereâ(TM)s really strong reasons itâ(TM)s not being prescribed.

Not at all. We have evidence of longterm immunity for most patients who get the vaccine. All antibody levels decline over time from all diseases. We don't have enough data to say what is a cutoff for immunity, the way we do for measles etc. (if those antibody titers are too low then people get booster shots. Ask anyone who works in a hospital in the US, they must submit titers to be employed).

There's just so much wrong with your post I don't know where to begin.

Doctors know about the mechanisms and risks and benefits of every drug. No drug is without side effects or risk; even giving oxygen can be harmful in some circumstances. There's a small handful of doctors who insist that ivermectin works, and multiple studies showing that it does not. This is not demonizing it; I would LOVE there to be a drug that saved my patients who died, but this doesn't work. Just like hydroxychloroquine, it was another rumored drug that failed.

Ivermectin is dosed in MICROGRAMS, higher doses can cause blindness, fecal incontinence, and other issues. People are taking gram-doses meant for a 1200lb horse and writing about their side effects on social media. The horror of doctors on hearing this and begging people to stop is NOT demonizing it. Doctors are accused of demonizing smoking, fat people, and the list goes on.

Vaccines normally take years because it takes years to setup and run a clinical trial. Funding and manpower is an issue; signing up volunteers is another; and then you have to wait for enough people in the study to develop the disease in order to get results. A ton of money and manpower was thrown at the Covid issue, there were no shortage of volunteers this time, and the number of cases skyrocketed allowing the researchers to get the needed data in just 6 weeks. There were no corners cut, which is why public health experts are near unanimous on supporting the vaccine study results. The data is pretty self-evident.

Your phony centrism isn't helping because you're talking like an antivaxxer.

People ARE going out and grabbing horse pills, because they think they know better than a doctor and are going around them to get a med without understanding its mechanism or dosing.

Ivermectin is FDA approved for certain parasites, and it's prescription-only because it has dangerous side effects and needs to be dosed carefully by weight. That's why it needs monitoring by a doctor. It also has no strong evidence that it works and there's evidence it does nothing at all. We've been over this since hydroxychloroquine, just saying "FDA approved" shows how people don't understand anything about medications.

1. That's with the new delta variant
2. The majority of people in that country were vaccinated and vaccines are not 100% effective, so of course they would make up a proportion of those infected

AT&T and Verizon still don't understand that "more unlimited" is an oxymoron.

You think this is something public health authorities wanted to do?

The alternative is to keep stuff closed. We can’t go back to normal until we vaccinate enough people and quarantine, vaccine passports are a way to let things open earlier.

I teach biostatistics and epidemiology. That is unfortunately not how it works. Even with pooled testing (which is what you were describing), you need a high enough sensitivity and specificity of the test to make it worthwhile to test in that manner. A low sensitivity (ie high false negative) will be a major problem as it will let more cases spread, and a low specificity (ie high false positive) will cause a lot of unnecessary followup testing, along with anxiety and costing resources.

You're talking about the benefits of a screening test and not a confirmatory test, but those are problematic as well. The rapid nasal Covid tests are about 80% sensitive, meaning they miss 20% of the actually positive people, and near 100% specific, meaning there are nearly no false positives. Depending on how prevalent Covid is in the community, that can mean the test is great at ruling out or useless. Using it for people with a fever in the ER is a good test for ruling out Covid if it's negative. It's estimated that given the current prevalence of Covid in the US, randomly testing people using a rapid test could miss 1 in 4 actual positives. That's how Trump probably came down with Covid, the White House used rapid tests on all guests and assumed all the negative tests meant nobody needed to wear a mask.

So to answer your post, it's not just a matter of squeamishness, but we need hard data showing the test is more accurate than our current testing, and if that isn't the case, whether it's at least cheaper or more efficient.

Several reasons;

Because of how dangerous false negatives are, all tests must go through a rigorous process to compare them to a gold standard (like PCR or cultures) to verify accuracy. This requires huge amounts of data and large patient populations to sample to compare results.

If labs working since March are finally rolling out home nasal Covid test kits, it will take nearly as long to get there for rectal Covid test kits.

Population-level testing like sewage tests are not nearly subject to the same level of scrutiny because of how inaccurate they can be and because they donâ(TM)t affect clinical decision-making. Those tests are performed in a high-complexity lab with certified operators. Your average doctors office will not be able to run their own test anytime soon, so first you will need the test to be approved in a CLIA-certified lab, and then eventually manage to prove its efficacy in a lower-complexity test kit to work in a CLIA-waived lab (eg. A doctors office running a urinalysis using a small desktop analyzer or a color-changing test strip kit. Getting it to home use will be another hurdle from there.