Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 15

I have an old friend from years ago who I now keep in touch with on Facebook. Her posts are fascinating in the amazing variety of conspiracy theories, some outrageous, some maybe partially true.... Read More

  1. by   KatieMI
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    I hear you, and I guess what I don't know, and what I'm not sure any of us know, is what the true threshold is for a public outbreak of something that was all but eradicated. Would adjusting the CDC schedule satisfy people who are in the camp of indecision with regard to vaccines? I think, for instance, taking mercury out of kid vaccines generally made people feel they are safer --- even if it was a scapegoat of sorts.
    Some preventable diseases are all but eradicated in the United States of America. But people come in the United States from all around the world, including countries where vaccination policies are much less stringent, or where these diseases are not at all eradicated. Only some types of immigration visas require proof of vaccinations.

    The last outbreak of measles in California originated from unvaccinated travelers from Europe.

    Measles | Cases and Outbreaks | CDC

    And, answering your question, - the treshold should be high enough to protect the most vulnerable populations. In case of measles, these are babies less than 12 months old and very sick children and adults. Counting how easy measles spreads, the only one reasonable option is still to vaccinate everyone who has no medical contraindications. I agree that the case of flu vaccine is a bit more contradictory, but, IMHO, it is reasonable to at least "strictly encourage" (if we leave alone the issue of "forcing" it upon unwilling individuals) flu vaccine for everyone who deals with the individuals from the category of high risk - old, young, sick and pregnant.
  2. by   KatieMI
    Quote from MunoRN
    I think it's important not to overstate the evidence since this is often how conspiracy believers are born. While there are numerous recommendations and legal requirements out there, there has yet to be reliable evidence to support these recommendations and requirements.
    Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 6 or older living in long-term care institutions | Cochrane
    I just love when study authors declare that "RCT is needed" when, as they should understand, there can be no RCT, ever, done. To get study power high enough to allow for calculations which would be deemed valid and reproducible for general population, they will have form control group (that is, not vaccinated and allowed to ride through yearly flu epidemic as they are) of at least couple of thousands of 60+ years old, which will have to receive care from unvaccinated caregivers. Good luck with finding that many people willing to risk their lives in the name of science, and even more of it with the registration of the trial.
  3. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from Farawyn
    Assuming we are all on somewhat the same page as RNs, and not speaking to lay people, I think the tone, peer to peer, is more than appropriate, and much more restrained than other years.

    Chiding people doesn't help, either.
    Chiding? Um, ok. So what I say is chiding, but the mean-girl-nurse-on-nurse routine is "educating". I'm straight now.
  4. by   Horseshoe
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    I am. Why do you ask? If it's because I have a different view than most of you on here, that doesn't mean I'm not a nurse.

    Although I have heard it recently, I don't recall hearing the term back in the Dark Ages when I was in school.
    No, it's not because you "have a different view," it's because you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about what the term "herd immunity " means, which is a mathematical concept, not a matter of opinion. It's what I had assumed to be part of every nursing school curriculum, so it was hard for me to believe any licensed nurse would not have had exposure to that very important concept. It's the central point of the term "herd immunity," which you claimed to understand but clearly did not.
  5. by   KatieMI
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    Well yes, I DO think there is damn good evidence to vaccinate kids. My point --- my entire point -- in anything I have said is that how we talk about things matters. I think this whole thread is a perfect illustration of how to get people to NOT listen to you. Throwing peer reviewed articles at people isn't enough. We have to do better. We have to meet people where they are at and go from there. I'm sure your literature you posted is correct about how people make their decisions today based on social media. I agree with you! Are fear-mongering and government mandates the best way to answer that challenge? When you say yes, because you think people are just going to be stupid no matter what (I don't mean you personally, Boston) you create a bigger divide. Just my .02
    1). Pretty much no one working nowadays in American healthcare has a luxury to speak with patients for hours in a row. That's just the fact of life, sorry.

    2). When we, healthcare providers, say that "patients should make their own medical decisions", we assume that they have the basic knowledge and understanding allowing them to make such decisions. This is, though, our assumption and nothing else. I do not think I need to explain anybody here that the level of education about health among general public is quite low in general and can be frightfully low in some particular cases, independently of "general education" level.

    If even here on professional forum we see quite a few people who just blindly deny evidence accepted by every healthcare organization in the world, what can we demand from someone who draws most of his healthcare knowledge from Dr. Oz's show and Wikipedia?

    3). Love it or hate it, mandating vaccinations is proven and remains the most effective way to support herd immunity (i.e. vaccinating enough people to minimize risks for these who, for some reason, cannot be immunized or do not develop immunity).

    4). We can do better. The question is how to do it with people who do not want to hear, see or know anything besides what they already think they know. Again, even here on this forum quite a few participants just do not get the fact that vaccination against certain diseases, including flu, pertussis and rubella, is the act of their professional and social responsibility, not their personal choice. Like following driving rules, being an organ donor, being obligatory responder, learning CPR - we should all do it, not for themselves, but for the sake of health and safety of others.
  6. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from KatieMI
    Some preventable diseases are all but eradicated in the United States of America. But people come in the United States from all around the world, including countries where vaccination policies are much less stringent, or where these diseases are not at all eradicated. Only some types of immigration visas require proof of vaccinations.

    The last outbreak of measles in California originated from unvaccinated travelers from Europe.

    Measles | Cases and Outbreaks | CDC
    Good point.
    Yes, I couldn't remember the specifics -- thanks for the link.
  7. by   NurseDisneyPrincess
    Quote from Farawyn
    Wait...don't go!
    You forgot to post even ONE article stating you can get flu from the flu vaccine!!!
    Is that really necessary? Are you not an adult?

    I've read this entire thing and while I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I'm appalled by a lot of the behavior seen on this thread. The opposing viewpoint isn't what's embarrassing here; it's the belittlement. There is no reason to be disrespectful. Hear everyone's viewpoint. Understand their perspective. Provide the data/research. Don't be a jerk or belittle them if they don't agree with you.

    Could you represent the profession with a little dignity? Stop acting childish.
  8. by   NurseDisneyPrincess
    Yeah, I'm not for this new trend of, "I'm going to be as condescending and rude as possible, but hide it under the guise of tough love and then it's totally fine because I'm educating you!!". It's an excuse for someone to be awful and get away with it.

    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
  9. by   heron
    What both of the above posters ignore is that the data are presented in each and every one of the biannual vaccine threads that have popped up over the years. Every single discussion of vaccination brings out the same old memes. Reality orientation doesn't work. That, the tendency to conflate respect with agreement, and the insistence that they bear no responsibility for maintaining the herd immunity that protects vulnerable people, has led many to become highly frustrated with anti-vax sentiment.
  10. by   BostonFNP
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    I hear you, and I guess what I don't know, and what I'm not sure any of us know, is what the true threshold is for a public outbreak of something that was all but eradicated.
    This is a basic principle in epidemiology and calculated using a basic reproduction number for each illness to calculate a threshold. Mumps has an R0 of about 5 which makes the vaccine threshold about 80%. Measles has an R0 of about 15 which makes the threshold about 94%.

    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    I usually find that solutions lay in finding middle ground, somehow.
    This really should not be a "middle ground" every one gets equal time my opinion is as good as yours type issue.
  11. by   BostonFNP
    Quote from NurseDisneyPrincess
    There is no reason to be disrespectful. Hear everyone's viewpoint. Understand their perspective. Provide the data/research.
    I hope I have't been disrespectful to anyone. I have, on a number of occasions, asked people to share "what they read" as sources to support their side of the argument and I have yet to see a single source posted, let alone a single legitimate source.
  12. by   FolksBtrippin
    Quote from Farawyn
    What of the choices of the immunosupressed, the elderly, the infants? Our patients? They have none. They are much more susceptible to flu.
    Shouldn't we as healthy, educated individuals morally make the choice TO get the shot?

    It's not about what you want, if you are going the moral route. It's about our responsibilities to others-
    as health care workers and human beings.
    We agree that getting a flu shot to protect vulnerable populations is a good, moral choice.

    Forcing others to get a flu shot is a different moral question.
  13. by   FolksBtrippin
    I want to live in a free society.

    That means I have to let people make their own decisions about not being injected with flu vaccine, even if those decisions are wrong, misguided, not based on evidence, etc.

    I also understand that attempts to use force and actual force will just cause them to strengthen and steel themselves against vaccination further, because that is human nature.

    If we were talking about a virus that was causing mass death or deformity I would change my stance and say go ahead and use force. We're not there.

close