it really is just information parroting/parading, and anyone defending it, is OK with it because its supporting their own "interpretation of the facts". It's wild how polarized we are, but not really, because these things are just further supporting the echo chamber of opinions one side already had.
Your "biggest problem" is not based on fact.
Your "biggest problem" is not based on fact.
You said "have been nothing close to 'full' for many months of the last year."
A reasonable interpretation of your words is that there was at least one month last year where the hospitals in your area were "close to 'full'."
How long does a hospital need to be "close to 'full'" for the people who work there to feel "overwhelmed"?
CITATION NEEDED
Are you talking about the 53 Allina employees (out of 27,000) who were fired?
https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/allina-says-it-par...
The 0.2%? That's what you think did it?
And the National Guard - is this what you're referring to?
> The Minnesota National Guard will deploy 400 members to reinforce nursing staffs at long-term care facilities
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/11/22/...
They were deployeed to long-term care. Not ICU.
If you want to make the argument that it was losing staff to vaccine mandates that resulted in hospitals being overwhelmed, I think you have a big hill to climb to make a credible argument.
Is there any evidence supporting vaccine requirements being a larger source of nurse attrition than burnout?
Where did he say that these people don't believe in medicine? In fact, being a Doctor or Nurse by definition means believing in medicine and protecting the patient is your job. More so than some random hacker news stranger.
Refusing to take a vaccine that appears to be safe and reasonably effective despite being in a pandemic and in a field of work that both increases your risk of exposure and increases the potential damage caused by said exposure (spreading the disease around people who might be already weakened by other medical conditions) suggests they don't.
> Ad Hominem attacking the author
Could you elaborate? I don't see anything in my comment that's attacking the author directly rather than their claims which I totally disagree with.