Changing the Conversation about COVID to Get More People Vaccinated

[MunoRN, RN]

11 hours ago, DesiDani said:

And yet, there is the subject of this question asked by the OP. So like it or not their feelings irrational or not will eventually have to be considered, in order to get more and more people vaccinated. The mandates will work to an extent and then they will fail to work. People will get jobs from employers who don't have mandates. Not to mention after a person lost their due to a mandate, do you think that rhetoric like yours is going to convince people to get vaccinated? 

So what is the point of this thread? Seriously? Eventually people will have to consider the unvaccinated concerns. 

This has been a frequent argument, that more people would get vaccinated if we "consider" their reasoning for not getting vaccinated.  As though this section hasn't been non-stop "considering" of people's stated reasons.  

It seems that by "consider" what you're referring to is that we should accept or at least not disagree with people's stated reason for non getting vaccinated, as though that would somehow then cause these folks to decide to get vaccinated.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

I've considered stated reasons that I have been told to not get vaccinated, and find most of them to be contrary to the facts. 

The vaccines will not cause infertility

They are not experimental

They are safe and effective in reducing serious disease and length of time of infectiousness. 

Their production does not require an ongoing supply of aborted fetal tissue. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that mandated vaccines are legal

VAERS reports do not prove that vaccines have caused thousands of deaths

Most major religions do not forbid vaccines

> 753,000 people in the US have died from covid and 1200 continue to die every day. 

Millions have been left with long term effects. 

[DesiDani]

Why ask about changing the conversation on vaccination in order to get more people vaccinated, when the people asking don't want to change their conversation. What exactly does the OP want to change?

 

If nothing is broke, no change of conversation is needed.

 

[MunoRN, RN]

7 minutes ago, DesiDani said:

Why ask about changing the conversation on vaccination in order to get more people vaccinated, when the people asking don't want to change their conversation. What exactly does the OP want to change?

 

If nothing is broke, no change of conversation is needed.

 

What is it you're suggesting should be different about the conversation?

[Sciencedude1, BSN, RN]

On 11/1/2021 at 9:18 PM, PMFB-RN said:

I've already learned that constructive conversations with your kind is impossible. 

    You outed yourself when you attempted to paint the wonderful and absolutely necessary  immunity and legal liability enjoyed by the vaccine makers are something to be suspicious of and to scare people with.   

My "kind"? You mean people who disagree with you? So you are not willing to talk to anyone who has a different opinion? 

Bigot-a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

[Sciencedude1, BSN, RN]

On 11/1/2021 at 6:15 PM, emtb2rn said:

I’m going to throw a crazy idea out - try searching on the phrase you mention above. I’m thinking you just might find your answer on your own. 

I understand that you think I should go and look for it. It most have been a long time since you have been in school. But in an academic discussion which this is supposed to be (if you want to be taken seriously), you should provide  references. I have been doing that all through out our discussion. The point of a reference is so people can look at the same reference you are using and judge for themselves the quality of the reference. There is a big difference between referencing a news article made by journalist and a peer reviewed research publication. 

[Sciencedude1, BSN, RN]

On 11/1/2021 at 7:44 PM, heron said:

Don’t hold your breath. He flat out refused to look at information that would have placed his originally cited statistics in context. So much for honest discussion.

What information are you referring to? I am trying to have an honest discussion as to how to get more people vaccinated. Do you have any better ideas than what I have proposed? Obviously mandating vaccines is not going to work in regards to getting everyone vaccinated. It's going to create new problems such as lack of employees in critical positions. Firefighters, police officers, and nurses for example are leaving New York, and heading to Florida. People are leaving states that are mandating vaccines and going to states not mandating it. The vaccine mandate at this very moment is being litigated in courts. People have very strong opinions in regards to what is put in their body. Education has always been the most effective approach towards public health issues. For example has the war on drugs been effective in stopping drug use? I think not. Countries that have used education as a means of stopping drug use, have had better outcomes. Vaccine mandates are only going to lead to mistrust of the medical community by the people not wanting to get vaccinated. 

 

[heron, ASN, RN]

Dude, you discredited yourself when you:

A. Refused to consider the comparison between the vaccine dose effects you listed and the incidence and severity of the same conditions occurring as complications of Covid infection.

B. Did not have a clue that there already exists a mechanism for compensating those who experience a “vaccine injury” that does not require a lawsuit.

Nobody cares if you do not take them seriously. Your so-called “academic discussion “ isn’t, no matter how wordy and condescending you get. Faux intellectual gobbledegook doesn’t work with this crowd.

[Sciencedude1, BSN, RN]

On 11/7/2021 at 1:59 AM, toomuchbaloney said:

" The irrational fears, twisted science and crazy data analysis has been regurgitated and heard again and again and again. "

How is the science "twisted" and the data analysis "crazy"? Your opinion bears no weight in the scientific community unless you have a data set proving the contrary. This "crazy and twisted science" is coming from the international community not just American right ring "antivaxers". 

Here is a real peer reviewed article published in a real scientific journal discussing the international communities report of myocarditis/pericarditis which you label as "crazy and twisted".

Pepe, S., Gregory, A. T., & Denniss, A. R. (2021). Myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination. Heart, Lung and Circulation, 30(10), 1425–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2021.07.011

Edited Nov 13, 2021 by Rose_Queen
quote attribution formatting

[Sciencedude1, BSN, RN]

25 minutes ago, heron said:

Dude, you discredited yourself when you:

A. Refused to consider the comparison between the vaccine dose effects you listed and the incidence and severity of the same conditions occurring as complications of Covid infection.

B. Did not have a clue that there already exists a mechanism for compensating those who experience a “vaccine injury” that does not require a lawsuit.

Nobody cares if you do not take them seriously. Your so-called “academic discussion “ isn’t, no matter how wordy and condescending you get. Faux intellectual gobbledegook doesn’t work with this crowd.

" Refused to consider the comparison between the vaccine dose effects you listed and the incidence and severity of the same conditions occurring as complications of Covid infection"

OK that is your assumption. All I have been saying is that people should have a choice to receive medical treatment which has risks regardless of how small that risk is. What else should we mandate in the future because it is in the best interest of public health? If you think government public mandates will stop with this vaccine you are mistaken. Will vaccines in the future with higher risk profiles be acceptable to you in the name of public health? What other medical interventions will be mandated in the name of public health? If we go down this path of mandating medical treatments patients will no longer have autonomy. I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand. If you really want people to get vaccinated educate them on different risk profiles you are talking about instead of treating them as crazy "antivaxers". 

Did not have a clue that there already exists a mechanism for compensating those who experience a “vaccine injury” that does not require a lawsuit.

OK so because I don't know something that automatically discredits me. So with that logic med surge nurses who don't know how to use vasoactive drips discredit themselves as nurses. Lack of knowing something does not discredit an individual. Claiming to know something when in reality you don't does. I am still waiting for the reference regarding the vaccine injury compensation mechanism. I have no idea as to the quality of your reference until you provide a reference. 

LOL wordy and condescending? I have not been using ad hominem attacks to prove my position. 

 

 

[MunoRN, RN]

1 hour ago, Sciencedude1 said:

My "kind"? You mean people who disagree with you? So you are not willing to talk to anyone who has a different opinion? 

Bigot-a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

A "bigot" is someone who holds views of others that are not reasoned; believing someone is dangerous simply because of the color of their skin is bigoted, believing someone is dangerous because they admitted to being a serial killer is not bigoted.

15 minutes ago, Sciencedude1 said:

How is the science "twisted" and the data analysis "crazy"? Your opinion bears no weight in the scientific community unless you have a data set proving the contrary. This "crazy and twisted science" is coming from the international community not just American right ring "antivaxers". 

Here is a real peer reviewed article published in a real scientific journal discussing the international communities report of myocarditis/pericarditis which you label as "crazy and twisted".

Pepe, S., Gregory, A. T., & Denniss, A. R. (2021). Myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination. Heart, Lung and Circulation, 30(10), 1425–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2021.07.011

 

That's an editorial and not actually a peer-reviewed study, but it references peer reviewed studies.  

It points out that myocarditis caused by vaccination is typically mild and "is resolved rapidly".  But myocarditis caused by Covid infection is generally more severe and often permanent, and occurs far more commonly (the risk of myocarditis due to covid infection is 9 to 10 times that of the risk following vaccination).  And that's just one of many serious and often long-term sequalae of Covid infection.

[Sciencedude1, BSN, RN]

16 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

A "bigot" is someone who holds views of others that are not reasoned; believing someone is dangerous simply because of the color of their skin is bigoted, believing someone is dangerous because they admitted to being a serial killer is not bigoted.

That's an editorial and not actually a peer-reviewed study, but it references peer reviewed studies.  

It points out that myocarditis caused by vaccination is typically mild and "is resolved rapidly".  But myocarditis caused by Covid infection is generally more severe and often permanent, and occurs far more commonly (the risk of myocarditis due to covid infection is 9 to 10 times that of the risk following vaccination).  And that's just one of many serious and often long-term sequalae of Covid infection.

So why should anyone be forced to take the risk of myocarditis again if they have already been infected with covid19 and can prove immunity with an antibody titer? Especially considering the actual infection with covid19 provides a more robust and longer acting immunity.