Actually, that's false. If you want to quantify "new vaccine risk" versus the risk of getting infected, then killing a patient, do that. Should employers, or patients, "blithely accept" the added risk of an unvaccinated worker? Is there any data showing vaccines lower the risk of infection, so increase the risk of a nurse killing a patient? No, the data all show the opposite. So what part of a healthcare provider getting vaccinated don't you understand? Is it better or worse to lower the odds of infecting and killing a patient? Oh, wow, that's easy - better. So what part of that is "blithely" anything?
For Becca et al. the risk of vaccines is either demonstrably very slight, or unknown. The risk to a vulnerable patient large and catastrophic and known. If she wants to prioritize the slight or unknown risk to herself, fine, but then don't whine when that decision means you can't take care of people who are vulnerable. She's not a ****ing child. Again, nothing 'blithe' about any of that.
And yet you don't quote him... Define "handle" for us. And it is truly amazing that when facts change the people following the changing facts in a "novel" virus with now several different variants update guidance to reflect those facts! What an idiot!!!!! He should get a position and stand by it no matter the facts!! That's what the smart people do.