Mandatory Flu Vaccines- How do you feel? - page 9
Anyone else upset by the requirement to take flu vaccine or else... not even a mask option??? Only way out is a MD note stating "severe" allergy. Why is it we can't force our patients but our hospitals can force us. I am... Read More
- 1Oct 8, '12 by Glycerine82, CNAQuote from brandy1017The" poor person" even thinks the risks outweigh the benefits. He agrees that he just "won the lottery" ( his words). I do support the mandate because I feel that as caregivers, we have an obligation to protect our patients. If you are allergic or are pregnant you should be able to wear a mask, but that's all. It's about protecting as many people as we can. The fact is that more lives are saved from getting the flu shot than not. I think it's unfortunate thy some people have such a severe reaction to it. I would argue its discussing for someone to refuse to get it when they could potentially save lives by doing so. So yeah, I have the nerve.
Wow! Just Wow! You even admit you've cared for some poor person who got guillian barre from the flu vaccine and you still have the NERVE to say go ahead and mandate it, to hell with whoever the poor suckers are who end up paralyzed or dead! That is just disgusting! What a patient advocate! WOW!
"No day but today"
- 0Oct 8, '12 by ~*Stargazer*~Quote from Asystole RNThe Feds *are* employers. Making a distinction of private sector employers vs. public sector employers being relevant to this topic is splitting hairs. The overall topic is *mandated* vaccination. So, I disagree. They are all relevant, IMHO.Two of the letters are in opposition to the Feds mandating flu vaccines and the other opposes the flu vaccine AND requirement for masks.
Since we are discussing the right of employers mandating the vaccine, none of those addresses the current topic.
- 1Oct 8, '12 by peasandonionsQuote from classicdameThe law states that the employer has the right to offer the mask option, and mine does not. The point I am trying to get across is just because you get the flu shot it does not mean the patients are protected. It is not 100% effective. if they did not pick the right strains, no one has protection from the flu. I have educated myself on the vaccine and the law, that is why I know thisTexas has a new law for all healthcare workers requiring the flu vaccine or wear a mask during flu season. The idea is not to spread the disease. Do you really want a nurse to be the one who infects patients and visitors in a hospital setting? The flu vaccine is not a live vaccine. Really educate yourself if you chose not to get it. A minor inconvenience, in my opinion, versus serious illness.
- 3Oct 8, '12 by brilloheadQuote from megsbugI've seen this whole "It's not 100% effective" bandied around in this thread, but I've not seen anyone claiming that it *is* 100% effective. So what's the point of using that as an argument?It is not the matter of getting the flu shot. It is the false belief that it is 100% effective.
NOTHING in life is 100%, other than physical death.
People die from simple things every day -- broken bones can lead to fat embolus or infection. Simple appendectomy or tonsillectomy can lead to sepsis. Typical woman in labor can bleed out for no apparent reason.
Stuff happens. (Forrest Gump said so, even!)
But the fact of the matter remains, more people are saved from death and disability every year because of the flu vaccine than are damaged by the flu vaccine. And more people die from the flu and its complications than die from receiving the flu vaccine.
Is it 100% guaranteed to protect against the flu? Nope. But not getting the shot doesn't mean you won't become sick or dead either....
- 1Oct 8, '12 by Asystole RN, BSN, RNQuote from megsbugI do not know anyone who thinks that the vaccine is 100%. In fact, there is no intervention that has 100% efficacy.The law states that the employer has the right to offer the mask option, and mine does not. The point I am trying to get across is just because you get the flu shot it does not mean the patients are protected. It is not 100% effective. if they did not pick the right strains, no one has protection from the flu. I have educated myself on the vaccine and the law, that is why I know this
Just because handwashing is not 100% effective, should we abandon the practice or make alternatives?
- 0Oct 8, '12 by classicdame Guideif you were swabbed for MRSA you would be positive. Almost a guarantee. MRSA is opportunistic. It is common to all of us, but if our immune system is down or we have a break in our barrier (skin) then we are allowing an opportunity for infection. But the germ is always around.
- 0Oct 8, '12 by Asystole RN, BSN, RNQuote from barbyannColonization is a huge area of study and controversy right now.So if you are sure I have MRSA and so does every other nurse then why, oh why do I wear the ppe? Think about it......so we should gown/glove the entire time in hospital?
Some facilities do isolate those who are colonized, some do not. I am aware of several facilities that swab for MRSA and isolate if positive in addition to isolating anyone with a history of MRSA. For the most part the risk of transmission has to do with the amount of organisms present and the virulence of the pathogen. If you are colonized with an organism but you are not sick, either the numbers present or virulence is low.
- 0Oct 8, '12 by ~*Stargazer*~Quote from classicdameAccording to this article, MRSA colonization prevalence in healthcare workers in North America are 4%, and 4.6% world wide.if you were swabbed for MRSA you would be positive. Almost a guarantee. MRSA is opportunistic. It is common to all of us, but if our immune system is down or we have a break in our barrier (skin) then we are allowing an opportunity for infection. But the germ is always around.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...ttSBBXnA_tAKTALast edit by ~*Stargazer*~ on Oct 8, '12