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. She's a big believer that cannabis oil will cure just about anything and that information of course is being suppressed by the drug companies and the government.
She blames many, if not all, health problems on vaccines. She also subscribes to some disturbing anti-Semitic ideologies, blaming the network of high powered Jews, led by the evil Rothschild family.
I swear, the internet has turned slightly eccentric people into extremists. 30 years ago this woman was into macrobiotics, native Americans, and New Age philosophies.
The latter would, within limitations, answer the question "if mandating vaccine for HCWs would do any difference". If we want to answer the question "if vaccination of HCWs would do any difference", then we will have to form "clear control" of non-vaccinated HCW caring for "averagely" vaccinated population (with the same type of vaccine and known level of immune responce as evidenced by by titers) patients and avoiding "outside exposure bias" (that is, vaccination status of all visitors should be known, etc.). Counting that immune responce for flu vaccine is relatively low and in any given year chance of "antigen match" are also relatively low, being in average 60 +/- 10%, such study should be repeated for several years to gain enough power. That would probably be financial and logistical no-go. If we want to answer that million-dollars question of "if flu vaccination itself does any difference in morbidity/mortality among "X" population" in RCT format, then we will need "clear" control of population, that is, enough members of population randomly chosen and then purposefully injected with placebo, which would be ethical no-go.
I actually went through literature list and found and read those four RCTs' articles. The authors of original study had quite a reason to claim that those studies were not high quality evidence despite of being RCTs by format, although the subject is a clearly very difficult one to plan and execute an RCT while avoiding as many biases as possible.
These is one newer study about pediatric influenza-associated deaths (although, I guess, the second conclusion could be disputed):
We already know that an increase in vaccination rates results in a reduction of adverse outcomes related to influenza, which is why it's completely reasonable to state that there is good reason to believe based on related data that an increase in HCW vaccination rates will result in improved patient outcomes. But it's important to clarify that we don't "know" this to be true based direct measurement of mandatory vaccination policies and patient outcomes, the RCTs that do exist don't confirm this and truly high quality RCTs are lacking. This of course doesn't mean that we can say with certainty that there is no benefit to mandatory vaccinations of HCWs, but we can say with certainty needs to be honestly stated and qualified.
It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?
It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...
You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.
In the more common strains the vaccines effectiveness is around 60% from year to year, so the number on a scenario where the vaccine "didn't work" don't "seriously outnumber" those for whom it was effective.
Think of herd immunity as a room full of dominos where the dominos represent a population all susceptible to flu and therefore readily able to transmit the flu to others, by knocking down just one or a few dominoes they could potentially set of a chain reaction that knocks down all the other dominos. Now imagine the same room full of dominos but where you've glued down 50% of the dominos, knocking down that first domino might only cause a few other dominos to fall as the chain reaction can't perpetuate.
Why do nurses need to be educated on social media about anything for which all the information is easily available to anybody capable of critical thought?
Nurses should know how to access accurate information.
I should have been clearer with my query. I was actually wondering about all of the latent viruses and any other contaminants that can be found in viruses.
Why do nurses need to be educated on social media about anything for which all the information is easily available to anybody capable of critical thought?
Nurses should know how to access accurate information.
Imagine this discussion on a medical forum.
We're just having a discussion. If we learn something in the process, great. But don't feel obligated to
In the more common strains the vaccines effectiveness is around 60% from year to year, so the number on a scenario where the vaccine "didn't work" don't "seriously outnumber" those for whom it was effective.
Think of herd immunity as a room full of dominos where the dominos represent a population all susceptible to flu and therefore readily able to transmit the flu to others, by knocking down just one or a few dominoes they could potentially set of a chain reaction that knocks down all the other dominos. Now imagine the same room full of dominos but where you've glued down 50% of the dominos, knocking down that first domino might only cause a few other dominos to fall as the chain reaction can't perpetuate.
MunoRN, THANK YOU for a great way to explain the subject! With your permission, borrowed and put to good use :)
Why do nurses need to be educated on social media about anything for which all the information is easily available to anybody capable of critical thought?
Nurses should know how to access accurate information.
Imagine this discussion on a medical forum.
Honestly, I'd seen discussions of just such level or even below it on SDN.
Just because we are nurses doesn't mean we're automatically have more or better critical thinking and information management skills. Let's face it - in too many schools, even in BSN programs, "research" is seen as fluffy coursework which serves no parctical purpose except filling the credit hours with "useless paper writing". What is following when students finally get out of school and at practical nursing doesn't help the situation as well. As a result, we're having more and more RNs who do not trust science, do not know how to manage the avalanches of information they're exposed to, are not able to process new knowledge, critique it and apply it to their practice, and, in general, suspicious, if not openly hostile, toward anybody posessing the above skills.
I cannot say it is the particular problem of nursing or medicine - I live in a city which has more PhDs per capita than any other place comparable by size of population within mainland USA, yet we have very active local antivax lobby, complete with a congressman who keeps and voices similar views. The problem with antivax medical workers, though, is that other people trust them.
So it's a right or wrong issue for you? You need to be right?
Flies, vinegar, honey. Courtesy and respect toward all. And I'm not the only one who has said this to you.
You claim to be a nurse, and you have issues believing in basic medical/scientific facts. I don't care if you think I'm rude. I'm of the opinion that if you choose not to believe in those basic medical facts then you shouldn't be a Nurse. No one should need to give you an internet hug to make you feel at peace over your confirmation biases.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
We already know that an increase in vaccination rates results in a reduction of adverse outcomes related to influenza, which is why it's completely reasonable to state that there is good reason to believe based on related data that an increase in HCW vaccination rates will result in improved patient outcomes. But it's important to clarify that we don't "know" this to be true based direct measurement of mandatory vaccination policies and patient outcomes, the RCTs that do exist don't confirm this and truly high quality RCTs are lacking. This of course doesn't mean that we can say with certainty that there is no benefit to mandatory vaccinations of HCWs, but we can say with certainty needs to be honestly stated and qualified.