In general orientation after everyone has completed their health forms before lunch. After lunch the IC nurse is reviewing the forms and pipes up to the group (consisting of all departments not just nursing) "So Amanda, you haven't had the covid vaccine?" Gee Riley, is that a discussion for the whole group? "Well on Fridays all staff can go without masks and wear vaccinated tees that we gifted them with and there's a check mark sticker on their badge so everyone will know anyway." I respond oh, OK. No snark no sarcasm. Riley gets edgy and goes on a 5 minute rant that starts with don't you care about your patients you took an oath and ends with flu season is coming, how well do you think it will go for you if you get COVID, the flu and rsv at once? No response given because I felt that the entire exchange was unprofessional and chose to not participate.
1. I am not a crybaby or snowflake. I am a vet and have been doing this a long time. I don't react out of feelings and this seemed overboard.
2. An employer has the right to set any rules they like. This includes the free I'm vaccinated tees and going maskless on Fridays. The check ✔ on the badges feels a little red A to me but still their choice.
3. Does the average nurse here think this tactic is OK? I understand wanting every nurse to choose vaccination but is trying to publicly embarrass them OK as well?
I welcome all points of view but name calling and insults aren't welcomed or tolerated. Thanks guys.
If you choose not to vaccinate, you must at the same time accept that you will face the ire of your colleagues. They have perfectly valid reasons to feel this way, which I will not go into. Albeit a personal decision, you have to be ready to face the burden. There is no shame in not getting the vaccine. I hear it all the time "Oh, you've worked through the pandemic, you have seen how bad it is first hand. Yet you still don't want to get it. What is wrong with you?". I just smile and nod, and move on. I don't ever look at that person differently.
I think the OP was singled out unfairly in this scenario. It's no one else's business whether or not the OP received the vaccine. The IC nurse was super unprofessional and was obviously trying to shame her in front of everyone. That was ***. This vaccine is still experimental and there have been plenty of adverse reactions that the CDC readily acknowledges. For someone to want to wait until there is more known about the vaccine is not the same as someone refusing to "wash their hands" as another poster used as an analogy. There is a lot unknown about this vaccine. There should be no shame directed at someone who is not ready to take it.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
22 hours ago, underpressure said:
I think the OP was singled out unfairly in this scenario. It's no one else's business whether or not the OP received the vaccine. The IC nurse was super unprofessional and was obviously trying to shame her in front of everyone. That was ***. This vaccine is still experimental and there have been plenty of adverse reactions that the CDC readily acknowledges. For someone to want to wait until there is more known about the vaccine is not the same as someone refusing to "wash their hands" as another poster used as an analogy. There is a lot unknown about this vaccine. There should be no shame directed at someone who is not ready to take it.
The vaccines are not "still experimental".
Basing a decision to delay or refuse vaccination upon lies, misrepresentations and fears could be considered a shameful choice by some. That's especially true for those who are supposed to depend upon science and evidence for their professional decision making, IMV. Nursing culture has long embraced and promoted vaccination as a means to improve public health. I'm cool with maintaining that stance within the profession amd that requires that we don't coddle dangerous deviation from that during a pandemic.
Low vaccination rates will prolong this dance with disease.
I should clarify that to say "Not FDA approved" (per the CDC website).
Also, "basing decisions to refuse vaccination upon lies, misrepresentations and fears" is not an accurate characterization. Making the decision not to get vaccinated is based on anecdotal evidence. The VAERS has many clearly documented negative, even fatal reactions from taking the covid vaccine. Why are people who don't want to take a vaccine that has NOT been approved and is clearly causing some adverse reactions (that the vaccine makers themselves even acknowledge) being vilified? The vitriol directed at them is bizarre. People who have been vaccinated, if they believe what's being told to them about the efficacy of the vaccine, should not worry about those who choose not to get vaccinated.
Are we allowed to worry about patients who take biologics for autoimmune diseases and have poor response to vaccines? Are we allowed to worry about cancer patients, children, transplant recipients? Or do we just lock them away so that you can ignore the data about the millions who have not had adverse reactions, and the plummeting death rates?
VAERS has not documented many fatal reactions to vaccines. A VAERS report does not confer correlation between a vaccine and an adverse reaction, no matter what you may have heard from anti-vaxxers.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
44 minutes ago, underpressure said:
The vaccines are not "still experimental".
I should clarify that to say "Not FDA approved" (per the CDC website).
Also, "basing decisions to refuse vaccination upon lies, misrepresentations and fears" is not an accurate characterization. Making the decision not to get vaccinated is based on anecdotal evidence. The VAERS has many clearly documented negative, even fatal reactions from taking the covid vaccine. Why are people who don't want to take a vaccine that has NOT been approved and is clearly causing some adverse reactions (that the vaccine makers themselves even acknowledge) being vilified? The vitriol directed at them is bizarre. People who have been vaccinated, if they believe what's being told to them about the efficacy of the vaccine, should not worry about those who choose not to get vaccinated.
The vaccines used in the United States have emergency use authorization (approval). You are mischaracterizing the status and safety of the mRNA vaccines to validate your fears. There are exactly zero medications or vaccines available for any use anywhere which have no adverse or untoward reactions.
You are likely unqualified to infer anything from any raw data that you review from VAERS, as evidenced by your remarks here. Apparently you don't understand what that database represents.
You stated that you are basing your decision not to vaccinate upon anecdotal evidence...do you think that's a good way to make important decisions...on anecdote? Do you rely upon anecdote for your professional decision making?
People who can't recognize the value of vaccinating during a pandemic don't get to decide what is bizarre or what health professionals should worry about.
I'm not getting my information from "anti-vaxxers". I, myself, am not an "anti-vaxxer", btw. Just because someone does not want to take an unapproved vaccine does not, by definition, make them an "anti-vaxxer". I'm all for vaccines-the ones that have been approved, that is.
The VAERS report may not "confer correlation", but it sure as heck gives me pause.
"Or do we just lock them away so that you can ignore the data about the millions who have not had adverse reactions, and the plummeting death rates?" It's the data I'm NOT ignoring that has me concerned. And I agree with you that MOST people are not having adverse reactions to the vaccine. But plenty are. I'm also not ignoring the fact that MOST people that get covid do NOT DIE from it.
Anyway, not trying to hijack OP's post, just trying to make the simple point that not wanting to take an unapproved vaccine that does not have a proven track record does not make you an ***, nor does it give others the right to berate you, judge you, and impugn your character.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
19 hours ago, underpressure said:
I'm not getting my information from "anti-vaxxers". I, myself, am not an "anti-vaxxer", btw. Just because someone does not want to take an unapproved vaccine does not, by definition, make them an "anti-vaxxer". I'm all for vaccines-the ones that have been approved, that is.
The VAERS report may not "confer correlation", but it sure as heck gives me pause.
"Or do we just lock them away so that you can ignore the data about the millions who have not had adverse reactions, and the plummeting death rates?" It's the data I'm NOT ignoring that has me concerned. And I agree with you that MOST people are not having adverse reactions to the vaccine. But plenty are. I'm also not ignoring the fact that MOST people that get covid do NOT DIE from it.
Anyway, not trying to hijack OP's post, just trying to make the simple point that not wanting to take an unapproved vaccine that does not have a proven track record does not make you an ***, nor does it give others the right to berate you, judge you, and impugn your character.
You are continuing to misrepresent the safety and efficacy of these vaccines and I'm going to continue calling you out for it because advocating hesitancy without sound scientific cause is worthy of public discussion and deserves to be questioned.
asoundchoice
7 Posts
If you choose not to vaccinate, you must at the same time accept that you will face the ire of your colleagues. They have perfectly valid reasons to feel this way, which I will not go into. Albeit a personal decision, you have to be ready to face the burden. There is no shame in not getting the vaccine. I hear it all the time "Oh, you've worked through the pandemic, you have seen how bad it is first hand. Yet you still don't want to get it. What is wrong with you?". I just smile and nod, and move on. I don't ever look at that person differently.