Delta Variant is Spreading Like Wildfire in Florida

[NewRN'16]

And our governor does nothing about it. He even banned municipalities from enacting their own mandatory masks rules. I am truly terrified, even thought about leaving my job and start some travel assignments, just to get out of here. 

Almost no one is wearing masks in public establishments. Restaurants and attractions are at full capacity. We had 21,000 new cases of Covid 19 yesterday alone. ?

I am not looking forward to working on a Covid unit again. I know it's about to happen, but inside of me, I don't think I have the strength to go through it again. 

I am at a loss.. 

[Wuzzie]

50 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

All those people concerned about "experimental" vaccines now have a front row seat in the control group for the biggest real-world relative risk reduction trial we've ever seen. 

I wonder if they can even comprehend that. Seriously this type of experiment wouldn't even be allowed by the IRB. 

[toomuchbaloney]

24 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

- Because if those are the messages being sent they aren't being received by anyone who doesn't already see things that way. It isn't like this clever relabeling is a bona fide educational campaign, where it is expected that the masses will hear it and say, "Ohhhh. Now I get it."

- Because too many of us have bought into the idea that whomever is the loudest, the most vile or the snarkiest wins, without ever caring about whether they've actually won anything. It simply another strategy in which people get to feel like a smarty-pants while everyone loses. It actually is the same beast that produces the same results regardless who's doing it.

I want to know what clinician is going to have a successful one-on-one with a patient by saying, "So...I hear you're pro-disease! Is that right--you're working for the disease?"

Professionals are allowed to vent in forums such as this, in my view.  None of us should have to worry about making members or a visitor to this site feel bad about wrong choices and I certainly don't.  The vaccine avoiders don't currently have any qualms about endangering their loved ones, coworkers, community, country or their economy with their self centered behaviors and attitudes.  I have trouble worrying about what or how they feel or whether or not they'll get vaccinated...because I didn't address them politely. The victimhood defense.   I just want them to stop spreading disinformation on forums like this and to stay away from me and mine while they gamble with a dangerous VPD. 

 

[JKL33]

5 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Professionals are allowed to vent in forums such as this, in my view. 

I agree. So an honest appraisal of the use of the term "pro-disease" would be that "I use it because it makes me feel better; it is a way for me to express frustration."

[toomuchbaloney]

8 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

I agree. So an honest appraisal of the use of the term "pro-disease" would be that "I use it because it makes me feel better; it is a way for me to express frustration."

In your opinion...you believe that it is used because of those emotions...maybe or maybe not an "honest appraisal".  

[macawake, MSN]

1 hour ago, JKL33 said:

Ah.

I personally believe this is a misstep and that missteps such as this matter.

50 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

- Because if those are the messages being sent they aren't being received by anyone who doesn't already see things that way. It isn't like this clever relabeling is a bona fide educational campaign, where it is expected that the masses will hear it and say, "Ohhhh. Now I get it."

- Because too many of us have bought into the idea that whomever is the loudest, the most vile or the snarkiest wins, without ever caring about whether they've actually won anything. It simply another strategy in which people get to feel like a smarty-pants while everyone loses. It actually is the same beast that produces the same results regardless who's doing it.

I want to know what clinician is going to have a successful one-on-one with a patient by saying, "So...I hear you're pro-disease! Is that right--you're working for the disease?"

Honestly JKL33, I think you understood what BostonFNP meant the first time they used the term pro-disease. I know you are intelligent and I was surprised that you couldn’t guess what the term could refer to. Am I wrong in believing that you understood?

No one is suggesting that a provider address a patient like you suggested in the last paragraph I just quoted. I’m certain that Boston didn’t when talking to his/her patient.

This isn’t the first post I’ve seen you write where you seem to express displeasure with how many of your fellow forum posters talk about the people who refuse to get a Covid-19 vaccine. 

But I have yet to see you suggest an alternative approach. Have you ever managed to make a patient like the one BostonFNP described, change their mind and choose to get vaccinated. If you have any tips to share on how to reach a person who is completely immune to facts and logic, please share them. I’m not being snarky or sarcastic. I genuinely want to know and would really appreciate examples of how you’ve gotten through to folks like these.

How would you sway a person who thinks that the Delta variant is a global conspiracy aimed at having an effect on your darn mid-term elections!?! That thinking demonstrates that a person doesn’t have even the most flimsiest of connections to rational thought processes. 

I also would like to make you think about the possibility that posters who are slightly, or a lot, acerbic when talking about or to posters who won’t vaccinate or who spread disinformation, aren’t necessarily trying to ”win” something. They are just angry or frustrated or fed up with people whose decisions are getting people killed. I think you are seeing a competition where there isn’t one. 
 

 

[BostonFNP, APRN]

1 hour ago, JKL33 said:

Ah.

I personally believe this is a misstep and that missteps such as this matter.

I believe not being vaccinated, not wearing a mask, not socially distancing in the midst of a pandemic is a misstep and it matters.

I used the term a bit tongue-in-cheek to be honest which is why I put it in quotes. I would never call a patient "pro-disease" nor would I call them "antivaxx" (whether they are or not).  

[JKL33]

2 minutes ago, macawake said:

I think you understood what BostonFNP meant the first time they used the term pro-disease.

I had a guess; specifically I didn't want to assume their reasoning for using it.

3 minutes ago, macawake said:

But I have yet to see you suggest an alternative approach.

Then you haven't read all I have written. I have specifically stated my preferred approach and the fact that I have used it successfully.

6 minutes ago, macawake said:

Have you ever managed to make a patient like the one BostonFNP described, change their mind and choose to get vaccinated.

 Yes. I specifically posted about it in one of these discussions. I only posted about one incidence, but I've had other successes that didn't happen in a single visit like that particular one did.

4 minutes ago, macawake said:

No one is suggesting that a provider address a patient like you suggested in the last paragraph I just quoted. I’m certain that Boston didn’t when talking to his/her patient.

I suspect you are right. But then the answer to the question isn't the answer they gave, it's the answer I gave--which is that this sort of thing makes people feel better or is a mechanism of venting.

8 minutes ago, macawake said:

This isn’t the first post I’ve seen you write where you seem to express displeasure with how many of your fellow forum posters talk about the people who refuse to get a Covid-19 vaccine. 

I hope I am not supposed to be ashamed.

8 minutes ago, macawake said:

If you have any tips to share on how to reach a person who is completely immune to facts and logic, please share them. I’m not being snarky or sarcastic. I genuinely want to know.

I talk some of it through in a similar manner to what @BostonFNP has written about their recent interaction with an actual patient. Or what I wrote in my own post that you overlooked.

But that isn't what we are talking about; we should stay on the subject that I actually commented on. We're talking about the usefulness, besides venting, of clever relabeling such as "pro-disease."

BTW, just because there isn't a formula with 100% success rate of getting conspiracy theorists to accept a covid vaccine doesn't mean that "pro-disease" represents any reasonable attempt at anything.

 

 

6 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

I believe not being vaccinated, not wearing a mask, not socially distancing in the midst of a pandemic is a misstep and it matters. 

Agreed.

[toomuchbaloney]

2 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

I had a guess; specifically I didn't want to assume their reasoning for using it.

Then you haven't read all I have written. I have specifically stated my preferred approach and the fact that I have used it successfully.

 Yes. I specifically posted about it in one of these discussions. I only posted about one incidence, but I've had other successes that didn't happen in a single visit like that particular one did.

I suspect you are right. But then the answer to the question isn't the answer they gave, it's the answer I gave--which is that this sort of thing makes people feel better or is a mechanism of venting.

I hope I am not supposed to be ashamed.

I talk some of it through in a similar manner to what @BostonFNP has written about their recent interaction with an actual patient. Or what I wrote in my own post that you overlooked.

But that isn't what we are talking about; we should stay on the subject that I actually commented on. We're talking about the usefulness, besides venting, of clever relabeling such as "pro-disease."

BTW, just because there isn't a formula with 100% success rate of getting conspiracy theorists to accept a covid vaccine doesn't mean that "pro-disease" represents any reasonable attempt at anything.

 

 

Relabeling issues can sometimes result in change.  It is not wrong to relable some of these people "pro-disease" just like it's not wrong to label some people as pro-birth or anti-abortion rather than pro-life. That change of perspective is certainly uncomfortable for some people, but it's not incorrect. 

[macawake, MSN]

42 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

I agree. So an honest appraisal of the use of the term "pro-disease" would be that "I use it because it makes me feel better; it is a way for me to express frustration."

Sorry, me again. 

I really don’t think you understand what motivates me to post. I suspect that might also apply to what motivates some other posters who also express disdain, sadness, frustration or anger at ”anti-vaxx” posts. 

I have written many posts in various Covid threads. Not a single one of them has made me ”feel better”. Not one. Trying to feel good just isn’t what motivates me. Neither is venting. My motivation is something different.

With posters who appear genuinely uncertain, I try to provide facts. With posters who make it clear that they are only here trying to peddle misinformation and lies that we as nurses know costs human lives, my only goal is to make them stop. I don’t try to reason with them. I would have to be extremely naive to think that anything I say would have any effect whatsoever.
 

 

[JKL33]

4 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Relabeling issues can sometimes result in change.  It is not wrong to relable some of these people "pro-disease" just like it's not wrong to label some people as pro-birth or anti-abortion rather than pro-life. That change of perspective is certainly uncomfortable for some people, but it's not incorrect. 

I agree. But when you are talking about persuading the people you want to persuade, the question becomes "is it effective at persuading them." I was actually going to use your abortion example as another instance where re-labeling was used to rally the troops but not actually convince anyone of a single thing.

3 minutes ago, macawake said:

I really don’t think you understand what motivates me to post.

I am working on a private message in which I will explain the very same to you.

[toomuchbaloney]

6 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

I agree. But when you are talking about persuading the people you want to persuade, the question becomes "is it effective at persuading them." I was actually going to use your abortion example as another instance where re-labeling was used to rally the troops but not actually convince anyone of a single thing.

I am working on a private message in which I will explain the very same to you.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.  I am beyond feeling any responsibility for their poorly informed choices.  I counter foolish defenses and the elevation of unfounded concerns.  I don't care if my words make the purveyors of propaganda feel bad.  I don't care if they double down because they think I'm mean...they would likely find some equally silly reason to double down on that flawed thinking about vaccines anyway. 

I'm not rallying troops.  I am countering covid nonsense sometimes using impolite terms.  

[BostonFNP, APRN]

Just now, JKL33 said:

I agree. But when you are talking about persuading the people you want to persuade, the question becomes "is it effective at persuading them."

But therein lies the crux of this issue: these people don't need to persuaded about the vaccine, it has nothing to do with the vaccine in the end. They don't want the vaccine. They don't want to wear masks. They don't want to socially distance. Using the equally unhelpful label of "anti-vax" is more of a misnomer than "pro-disease".