Survey: 87% favor mandatory health worker H1N1 shots

dcampbell, please know that I am not picking on you. I get that there is a real sense of frustration here, but there is also lots of misinfomation as well.

That's quite a laundry list of complaint to be laid at the govt's doorstep, but is the govt truly responsible? The visitor situation is different in every hospital. Each hospital determines its own policy. Govt is not involved.

The fact is, former HHS Secretary Leavitt did a great job preparing the country for
the expected pandemic and, how I wish he was directing the govt response now
but that's another story. If govt had never reached out and, mandated that the
states make pandemic plans a few years ago, nationally we would be in much
worse shape than we are right now.

The states were warned that this could happen. So were the hospitals. Leavitt personally went to every single state. It was a big thing. There was even a special rate for the states to buy Tamiflu with govt assistance. Many states took advantage of this, but some did not. My state didn't. Is that the feds fault? No.

This is from March 2006: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/...ady/index.html

Hospitals and other healthcare facilities were supposed to make realistic pandemic plans, and drills. Did they do this? Good question. Did they want to spend the money on masks? You guess. Did they downsize staff, and beds to save money? Yes. Who's fault is that? Is it the govt's fault that ECMO is not available in every community?

Are the feds mandating vaccination? No, they are not.

Closing schools is a local issue, not national. Blame your local school board. The CDC and HHS did not have responsibility for these decisions. They advise only. I agree that there would be economic consequences for closing schools, but again these are local decisions. Personally, I would have liked to see the openings delayed also...Again, notifying parents
about schools is also a local decision.

They made no arrangements to vaccinate the total population? I wonder if that is even possible. The majority of the population never chooses vaccination. Would they change their minds now given the very vocal and sometimes outright distortion of truth regarding vaccination? I suspect that there will be sufficient vaccine for everybody that wants it, eventually. It will take time to vaccinate an entire country. It's never been done before as far as I know.

The pandemic that we were originally preparing for was bird flu. The national and state planning was geared to a more virulent virus than the one we are facing now, and your state's pandemic plan has existed for some time now. There is even a link to those plans somewhere in an old pandemic thread here at allnurses. But here is a current link:
http://www.flu.gov/professional/stat...tml#stateplans

At this time, the pandemic is characterized as mild to moderate by the WHO. While we are concerned about surge and shortages of critical supplies because of the increasing numbers of people becoming ill, so far the US is handling it, but it is true that the 2d wave has not peaked yet.

Vaccination is only one way that is being used to slow down the pandemic, and not everyone is going to choose it which means that there will continue to be susceptible hosts out there to be infected. A certain percentage will die, but with increasing herd immunity, things will get better.

Dear OP, I am sorry to go so far off topic to attempt rebuttal.

Just a note of reassurance. The H1N1 vaccine was not "fast-tracked" or "rushed" through the approval process. Every flu vaccine is commissioned, planned, designed, produced, and tested for safety and efficacy in a period less than one year. This is because it is not possible to evaluate patterns of emerging flu strains more than a year or less in advance. The viri just change to quickly to allow that. Nothing is different in the design or testing of the H1N1 vaccine. It received the same safety testing as do all flu vaccines.

As for those concerned because no one can "guarantee that is 100% safe;" come, now, my brothers and sisters in nursing, let us reason together! We all know that nothing we give our patients, nor any diagnostic test, is 100% safe. The reason we had to go to school so many years before we could receive our licenses is, partly, because every medical intervention carries some risk. A lot of our training is in how to minimize risk to patients to the lowest level possible. However, 100% safe? There is no such thing, and no one is claiming that there is! The issue is not 100% safety (which is unachievable in any area of medicine) but rather, risk vs. benefit. Some vaccine recipients will experience untoward reactions to the vaccine. A small number will suffer serious misadventures. However, unvaccinated people will suffer from the flu in higher numbers, and several thousands of them will die. The risk-benefit equation favors the vaccinated. Not because it (or anything else) is "100% safe," but because it will provide most recipients protection against a disease that is much, much more dangerous.

I didn't think that by choosing a career in healthcare that I lost my Constitutional rights as an American. Last time I checked, I still had autonomy over my body and control over my children's bodies until they become adults. I think it is ridiculous that for the cost of a paycheck, any employer can force me to inject poisons into my body that I do not want. If my immune system can't handle the job of clearing the flu (from any source) then I will remove myself from contact with patients. However, the last time I got the flu was nine years ago, so I'm going to take my chances with again not getting shots to purposely sicken my body.

OK think about the the population your patients come from. How many are educated medically to make an informed vote? Really? Would you let a plumber do surgery on you?

This is a bogus survey.

I am 43 years old and have never had the flu. I got a flu vaccine when I was 10. (my parents gave the ok). I didnt want the poison injected in me but it was mandatory.

I sense a tear in the space-time continuum.

CountyRat... our patients also have the right to refuse treatment... this is about choice.... What would you say if they came around with a live HIV vaccine and said it was mandatory?

I do understand what you are saying.. the bottom line... is CHOICE.

Mr. Hypocaffeinenemia... perhaps you need a cup of coffee.

You make a good point. Our patients can choose to refuse treatment, and that right must be respected. The problem with infectious disease, however, is that it has a nasty habit of passing from person to person without respect to the person's choices. If I choose to decline the flu vaccine, and carry the virus to a patient, where is their right to choose? What about my duty to protect? It is just not an easy issue.

Here is a thought; you and I both value individual choice in healthcare. So, how about letting choice solve the dilema for us? Let each provider choose whether to get vaccinated, but also give every patient the choice of whether he or she wants to be cared for by an unvaccinated provider. Me? I would choose not to let unvaccinated providers care for my elderly, diabetic mother, because the science shows that such providers would put her at significant, avoidable risk. Others could choose as they wish.

What are your thoughts?

If a drug hasn't been out for 5 years I'm not going near it unless MY life is threatened.

Let the flu loose- the earth is overpopulated as it is. If that means me and mine have to go, then so be it. I'm more concerned about keeping the planet going than keeping my personal gene pool alive.