Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) Updates
-
More details about those fully-vaccinated pax who caught Covid and are in ICU…
Take a look at the type of multiple medical conditions they have…makes me think carefully about doing sthg preventative to stay healthy. Definitely should consume less sugar (prevent diabetes), eat less fatty food & stress myself less (prevent hypertension)! And probably drink more water & exercise more to lose weight
……PATIENTS IN ICU
Giving more details on the eight patients now in ICU, Assoc Prof Mak said that they ranged from 38 years old to 90 years old.
Read also: Covid-19: Some parents call for full home-based learning after spate of cases among students; MOE says schools remain safe
Two of them are fully vaccinated, while the remaining six had not been vaccinated or had not derived adequate immune protection as a result of receiving just one dose of a vaccine.
“Each case had multiple medical conditions that made them further vulnerable to developing a severe infection,” he added.
These included conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease, heart disease and sepsis that was secondary to a bacterial infection.
https://www.todayonline.com/node/12129501 -
-
zeit.\" post_id=\"2033630\" time=\"1628409260\" user_id=\"194295:
Sorry, I forgot if I was with the prosecution or the defense
Well, these 2 articles concern the need for 12-17yo students to get their shots. The big group the FDA is reviewing to grant full approval is the 16yos & above, because Pfizer/Moderna have submitted their BLA application for >= 16+ / 18+ only. The 12-15yos will continue to have the option to take the EUA.
Full BLA approval means the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines would have a green-light/stronger legal justification. Such a move could also help persuade vaccine skeptics to finally get their shots, on top of providing more leeway for employers and businesses to impose stricter proof of vaccination requirements and vaccine mandates.
Most higher income ''blue states'' driving the US economy with high vaccination rates are waiting for clearance beyond the EUA to justify the new mandate. I agree with u some ''red states'' in midwest, south and the rust belt might not make it mandatory for students/employees to be fully vaccinated. They might stage a state-wide protest even after the BLA is granted...
https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/school-vaccinations.pdf . Seriously, what I meant to highlight is some of the difficulties or issues in trying to impose a nationwide mandate (think they are mentioned in the links although the articles are generally pro mandate).
You are correct that many political divisions there (state, city, etc) are likely waiting for full approval to try and push through a mandate, as that will give their argument more strength (or at least remove one major objection).
As it pertains to employers in USA, I think most are already in the clear to set whatever mandate they want. Employment there is \"at will\" meaning boss can change the rules or employee can quit at any time. My daughter and I were listing to a BBC podcast and they equated it to an employer deciding that all employees must wear purple hats (or something similar) going forward. Either you put on the purple hat or pack up your desk and leave. :lol: :lol: So far universities have also been successful at establishing whatever mandate they want too. Some students are trying to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, although I'm not sure if it will have much traction.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/indiana-university-students-urge-supreme-court-block-vaccine-mandate-2021-08-06/zeit.\" post_id=\"2033630\" time=\"1628409260\" user_id=\"194295:
Understand, I am not questioning anything they (SG) do or don't do. I only meant to say for USA I think there are some hurdles regardless of which way some press articles are leaning. Further, for better or worse, the best way to get voted out there is to take a stand on something that will turbocharge the other side or many in the middle. Even if what you are trying to do makes sense...SG is a nation-state with only 1 omnipotent ''fed'' govt. Once it's granted full approval by HSA, it may be made mandatory island-wide for 16yo+. It's only a matter of time. After all, who wants to invest in a vaccine that is permanently meant for emergency use?
Apologies to all if this is at risk of running off the tracks or into a blackhole many have no cares about. :imsorry: -
Schootopia\" post_id=\"2033938\" time=\"1628705899\" user_id=\"143961:
But when it is known that the risk of getting to the \"death bed\" stage is higher (especially for some groups), and a vaccine, even if fairly new but has been well-tested, can limit the no. who are likely to get to the \"death bed\" stage, I think it is fair to encourage it. How long is long enough, balanced with the no. who may die of the disease before then? And how many of the reluctant are going to be around (for all sorts of reasons) by then anyway? (I am referring to those aged over 60 or so).
.. I observe a rather clear shift in the official narrative to give prominent emphasise to unvaccinated elderlys in Singapore dropping dead on a near daily basis, repeated broadcasts of messages by senior politician claiming that vaccine is safe, and intentional policies to differentiate Singaporeans into two camps of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Fact is,
- mRNA vaccines have no unprecedents;
- they are only on Emergency Use Authorisation Status by FDA;
- if they are fully authorised by the end of this year, this will be unusually rushed. By the usual drug approval staging, it probably means some low frequency or long-term effect, which can be high-risk and not obvious, are not yet well understood.
- vaccines, by definition, are targeted at people who are otherwise healthy. It's not a situation of giving an experimental therapeutics to someone on death bed.
And the \"otherwise healthy\" can help to reduce the risk of people getting to the \"death bed\" stage by getting vaccinated. Since deciding against vaccination raises the risks for others, I fully support the differentiated measures. Some tweaking for those who are unable to take the vaccination should be given (for fairness). But those who choose not to be vaccinated should weigh all the conditions when making that decision.
Yes, new medical treatments/vaccines by definition have a shorter track record, but serious situations require taking some risk. The vast majority of medical workers and scientists back these vaccines, and they even administer them to their elderly parents, family members and themselves. I find that persuasive. -
Question about MOM’s SMM for workplaces:
On the MOM website: "From 19 August 2021, up to 50% of employees who can work from home will be allowed to return to the workplace. Social gatherings will also be allowed, in a group of up to 5."
Does anyone know whether this means that if there are 10 staff, only a selected 5 can return to workplace without time limit? The other 5 must still be fully WFH?
OR, does it mean that a max of 5 in any combination can be in the workplace at any time? No time limit for any individual staff as long as the max no. is not exceeded at any one time?
Also, the guidelines, although this statement is placed at the top, still says WFH as a default, and no social gatherings!
I’m confused! Would be glad if any HR person can shed light on this. -
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033962\" time=\"1628729454\" user_id=\"28674:
https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/default-document-library/annex-a009bdc806d184cc5b22010612ba0702e.pdf
Question about MOM's SMM for workplaces:
On the MOM website: \"From 19 August 2021, up to 50% of employees who can work from home will be allowed to return to the workplace. Social gatherings will also be allowed, in a group of up to 5.\"
Does anyone know whether this means that if there are 10 staff, only a selected 5 can return to workplace without time limit? The other 5 must still be fully WFH?
OR, does it mean that a max of 5 in any combination can be in the workplace at any time? No time limit for any individual staff as long as the max no. is not exceeded at any one time?
Also, the guidelines, although this statement is placed at the top, still says WFH as a default, and no social gatherings!
I'm confused! Would be glad if any HR person can shed light on this. -
emoh\" post_id=\"2033968\" time=\"1628733064\" user_id=\"10618:
Thanks, but that's exactly the statement that I'm puzzled about! Which interpretation do they mean?
https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/default-document-library/annex-a009bdc806d184cc5b22010612ba0702e.pdfslmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033962\" time=\"1628729454\" user_id=\"28674:
Question about MOM's SMM for workplaces:
On the MOM website: \"From 19 August 2021, up to 50% of employees who can work from home will be allowed to return to the workplace. Social gatherings will also be allowed, in a group of up to 5.\"
Does anyone know whether this means that if there are 10 staff, only a selected 5 can return to workplace without time limit? The other 5 must still be fully WFH?
OR, does it mean that a max of 5 in any combination can be in the workplace at any time? No time limit for any individual staff as long as the max no. is not exceeded at any one time?
Also, the guidelines, although this statement is placed at the top, still says WFH as a default, and no social gatherings!
I'm confused! Would be glad if any HR person can shed light on this. -
-
slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033973\" time=\"1628737359\" user_id=\"28674:
Thanks, but that's exactly the statement that I'm puzzled about! Which interpretation do they mean?[/quote]There is a chatbot on MOM website. Did you try asking there?
https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/default-document-library/annex-a009bdc806d184cc5b22010612ba0702e.pdfemoh\" post_id=\"2033968\" time=\"1628733064\" user_id=\"10618:
[quote=slmkhoo post_id=2033962 time=1628729454 user_id=28674]Question about MOM's SMM for workplaces:
On the MOM website: \"From 19 August 2021, up to 50% of employees who can work from home will be allowed to return to the workplace. Social gatherings will also be allowed, in a group of up to 5.\"
Does anyone know whether this means that if there are 10 staff, only a selected 5 can return to workplace without time limit? The other 5 must still be fully WFH?
OR, does it mean that a max of 5 in any combination can be in the workplace at any time? No time limit for any individual staff as long as the max no. is not exceeded at any one time?
Also, the guidelines, although this statement is placed at the top, still says WFH as a default, and no social gatherings!
I'm confused! Would be glad if any HR person can shed light on this. -
zac's mum\" post_id=\"2033975\" time=\"1628737967\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2033975 time=1628737967 user_id=53606]
There is a chatbot on MOM website. Did you try asking there?[/quote]I had to fill in full name, IC, then they asked for UEN! At that point, I gave up. Just to ask a question!slmkhoo\" post_id=\"2033973\" time=\"1628737359\" user_id=\"28674:
Thanks, but that's exactly the statement that I'm puzzled about! Which interpretation do they mean?
Anyway, I don't think I can be the only confused one - and since we have till 19 Aug, I'll wait for some larger organisation with a proper HR/Admin dept. to realise that the rule isn't clear.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
4
Online211.3k
Users34.5k
Topics1.8m
PostsMaths
English
Chinese
Multiple subjects