I am trying to feel out if anyone else has declined the Covid vaccine and feeling backlash or tension with other co-workers? I have never heard so much discussion regarding nurse receiving or declining a vaccine in the 12 years I've been a nurse. Not sure why it should even matter but, I am getting a lot of pressure about it. I do not see why I am "crazy " if I made the decision against receiving the vaccine. I also do not understand co-workers pushing the vaccine on me and others, or insisting we are out of our minds. This is coming from management level as well as staff nurses. I am just appalled at the treatment and many of us who have declined the vaccine have kept to ourselves. For me, personally, I made the choice not to get it and I was done at that. It's been a month into our hospital vaccines and people will not just shut up about it.
Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).
4 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:
I suspect that you will never see the trees for the forest.
I'm very much appreciative of your attempts to educate me. Maybe one day I will be capable of understanding.
I am not going to engage in further argument unless you care to take it to the breakroom. This is going nowhere. I often quote my daddy in these situations and he would say "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink in fact you will most likely end up covered in water and horse snot.
Good luck with that if you think you have free will?
In the America I live in, we have rules. We also have persuasive logical arguments influencing how we behave and think.
I choose to subscribe to more intelligent, educated people telling me how to think and behave like my parents and Kant and Descartes etc. I don't possess the depth of thought or breadth of experience to have free will. So I am happy that you are so capable.
I served in the military to keep this country free. I have seen countries that do not afford their residents that luxury..
Of course we have rules or there would be anarchy. At the end of the day, I choose what activities I want to do, what I wish to eat, where I want to live, as long as I have the means to provide my aspirations. Not every country allows that either
Again, bullying is NEVER okay, EVER. Many on here have agreed with the exact same sentiment, even if we feel that the vax was right for us. If you think bullying is okay, then never complain that you or a loved one is being bullied. You said that it's okay. Also, I pray for your patients if you feel it's okay to bully. By your own statements, you sound judgmental at best, dangerous at worst. Have a blessed day, and take your bullying elsewhere; I'm not interested
I will enumerate the statements you've made for ease of reply:
49 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:
1. How we feel about receiving feedback and information is purely personal!
2. If I am engaging in destructive behaviors, I would like to immediately be restrained verbally or physically to prevent harm to myself or others! But that's just me.
3. I can deal with the psychological fallout later, which as long as someone was acting in good faith for my well being and I understand that logically it was the best course of action, I would thank that person and be grateful.
4. I am responsible for my feelings and no one is likely to influence it because through education and experience, I have trained myself to rationally and objectively evaluate input. I will not give someone else the power to control how I feel!
5. If someone feels bullied because of what they have read and been told, then I suggest they explore why they feel that way and why are they unable to simply intake the relevant information pertaining to their erudition and discard the other? Apparently the problem might lie with how those individuals react in allowing their emotions to rule them?
1. Generally agree, with the understanding that the method of delivery goes into the evaluation of the information.
2. Yes. The problem arises when there is disagreement about the destructiveness of the behavior and/or when there is a discrepancy in how destructive behaviors are dealt with.
3. Generally, yes.
4. I do think we are mostly the ones responsible for our feelings. BUT, I think that is a pretty nuanced thing to learn; it seems to come with life experience, wisdom, trial and error and more formal ways of educating ourselves. I do not believe that you rationally and objectively evaluate all input; I think that would be a very difficult claim for most people to make. We can certainly strive for it and that's about all.
5. Yes. I think there is wisdom in what you said there. However, we aren't talking about useful information that was given to someone; we're talking about simply mockery and useless derision. That's what this thread is about. Forget the word bullying if you prefer; we can simply discuss what is and isn't useful. My argument is that not only is mockery and derision distasteful, it isn't even the equivalent of throwing an ebola-infected elevator-refuser out the window; that is to say, it protects no one. Because it simply doesn't accomplish anything.
4. I do think we are mostly the ones responsible for our feelings. BUT, I think that is a pretty nuanced thing to learn; it seems to come with life experience, wisdom, trial and error and more formal ways of educating ourselves. I do not believe that you rationally and objectively evaluate all input; I think that would be a very difficult claim for most people to make. We can certainly strive for it and that's about all.
5. Yes. I think there is wisdom in what you said there. However, we aren't talking about useful information that was given to someone; we're talking about simply mockery and useless derision. That's what this thread is about. Forget the word bullying if you prefer; we can simply discuss what is and isn't useful. My argument is that not only is mockery and derision distasteful, it isn't even the equivalent of throwing an ebola-infected elevator-refuser out the window; that is to say, it protects no one. Because it simply doesn't accomplish anything.
4. Unless you're a Vulcan. If you're a Vulcan you can totally go the all-logic route.
5) Agreed that people don't change their minds because you mock or deride them. People change their minds when you respectfully meet them where they are. Okay, sometimes they don't change their minds when you approach them respectfully. But the ones who won't change their minds in regards to a respectful conversation are definitely not going to change in response to mockery. Like do you really think someone will go, "well if she called me stupid, I must be wrong" instead of, "if she called me stupid, she must be a jerk and I'm not going to listen to anything else she says"? Because I'm pretty sure the latter is more likely than the former.
I will enumerate the statements you've made for ease of reply:
1. Generally agree, with the understanding that the method of delivery goes into the evaluation of the information.
2. Yes. The problem arises when there is disagreement about the destructiveness of the behavior and/or when there is a discrepancy in how destructive behaviors are dealt with.
3. Generally, yes.
4. I do think we are mostly the ones responsible for our feelings. BUT, I think that is a pretty nuanced thing to learn; it seems to come with life experience, wisdom, trial and error and more formal ways of educating ourselves. I do not believe that you rationally and objectively evaluate all input; I think that would be a very difficult claim for most people to make. We can certainly strive for it and that's about all.
5. Yes. I think there is wisdom in what you said there. However, we aren't talking about useful information that was given to someone; we're talking about simply mockery and useless derision. That's what this thread is about. Forget the word bullying if you prefer; we can simply discuss what is and isn't useful. My argument is that not only is mockery and derision distasteful, it isn't even the equivalent of throwing an ebola-infected elevator-refuser out the window; that is to say, it protects no one. Because it simply doesn't accomplish anything.
I expect that depends on the recipient.
I'm not sure if I understand what it is to be bullied? I understand that a situation which maybe a problem has surfaced and I address it as I do all problems. I have repeatedly stated in many posts that I dislike bullies. If there are others who choose to not understand context or get their kicks from being argumentative, it's a free country.
I carefully select what I read and who I listen to. I have certain irrefutable tenets that makes me literally blinkered re my perspective. Everything I consume is within those narrow channels.
It is very unlikely that I engage in mockery or derision since I ignore completely, people who deserve mockery or derision. If I decide that your perspective isn't worth engagement, I ignore you. I guage your perspective based on content, vocabulary and context. If a contrived scenario of an imaginary elevator or psych unit envelops some people and they miss the context of, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. So be it. Free country!
Consequences to everything. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction!
I suggest that those who don't take the vaccine or subscribe to PPE etc, socialize only with people who feel the same way. I mean why would you want to mix with idiots like myself who give up our rights so easily?
4. Unless you're a Vulcan. If you're a Vulcan you can totally go the all-logic route.
5) Agreed that people don't change their minds because you mock or deride them. People change their minds when you respectfully meet them where they are. Okay, sometimes they don't change their minds when you approach them respectfully. But the ones who won't change their minds in regards to a respectful conversation are definitely not going to change in response to mockery. Like do you really think someone will go, "well if she called me stupid, I must be wrong" instead of, "if she called me stupid, she must be a jerk and I'm not going to listen to anything else she says"? Because I'm pretty sure the latter is more likely than the former.
It must be a personal thing. I respond to logical, well reasoned arguments regardless of how it's delivered or by whom. I don't care if you are purple with multiple arms, smelly and smoking a big blunt. If your information is relevant to my situation, I will be absorbing it like a sponge to liquid. However, I have found a overwhelmingly that intelligent, insightful people are considered in their speech and behaviors. They are usually slow talkers who consider their speech cadence, rhythms and volume and minimize gestures to prevent distraction.
If a contrived scenario of an imaginary elevator or psych unit envelops some people and they miss the context of, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. So be it. Free country!
I didn't miss your context. You were clear in tying in your example with your take-home point about the good or needs of the many. But you also unintentionally chose an analogy that ended up involving an important aspect of this discussion: Using unnecessary or damaging approaches when other approaches might be just as efficacious (or even more efficacious) and overall less harmful.
Like you, I am decent at dealing with others who intend to manipulate my feelings. But what I'm interested in here is the other side: Why would a professional healthcare worker (such as the OP's coworkers) believe that mockery, sarcasm, disingenuous retorts, derision and the like are useful for getting people vaccinated in the workplace or the community? These coworkers likely purport to believe that as many people as possible should take the vaccine. [To be clear, that is my view too--I want as many people to take the vaccine as possible. I already received it at the first available opportunity.]
Do you believe that the coworkers' behavior is helpful in the larger context of getting people to receive vaccines?
I didn't miss your context. You were clear in tying in your example with your take-home point about the good or needs of the many. But you also unintentionally chose an analogy that ended up involving an important aspect of this discussion: Using unnecessary or damaging approaches when other approaches might be just as efficacious (or even more efficacious) and overall less harmful.
Like you, I am decent at dealing with others who intend to manipulate my feelings. But what I'm interested in here is the other side: Why would a professional healthcare worker (such as the OP's coworkers) believe that mockery, sarcasm, disingenuous retorts, derision and the like are useful for getting people vaccinated in the workplace or the community? These coworkers likely purport to believe that as many people as possible should take the vaccine. [To be clear, that is my view too--I want as many people to take the vaccine as possible. I already received it at the first available opportunity.]
Do you believe that the coworkers' behavior is helpful in the larger context of getting people to receive vaccines?
There are many mandatory things that we have to conform to. I don't smoke but you can't smoke in the work place and that irritates the daylights out of smokers despite knowing the ill effects.
I find it inconceivable that healthcare workers are against taking the vaccine. It's basic science. I simply imagined that we all believe in the science. What other medical practices don't they believe in but do daily? Hand-washing, medications, aseptic procedures? I have to believe in something to practice it otherwise I would feel hypocrital.
I completely understand the general public because they haven't got our education. But isn't it a somewhat anarchist point of view to work in an environment that you may deliberately or inadvertently sabotage? Does my license become compromised when consequences occur? Does this mean that I have to be even more paranoid that the environment I work in could be more compromised by someone not following best practices? Who's carrying the virus around because they don't believe it doesn't exist?
Thankfully it's mandatory to use PPE where I work, but I also work per diem different places and this thread has certainly given me more to think about than before.
I respond to logical, well reasoned arguments regardless of how it's delivered or by whom.
I sense this thread is winding down. A few takeaways:
I now have a sense, though not an understanding, of why so many of my coworkers are refusing to be vaccinated.
Having spent time in two careers, one almost exclusively male, another almost exclusively female, I've come to realize that "bullying" is an exclusive concern of the latter. Even though it occurs in both.
I'm left with a sinking feeling, that many of those who have gone through the same s**t that I have experienced during the past year, are, at the best "vax hesitant."
It goes with the territory in nursing, but I wish the profession was more grounded in science and facts, rather than feelings.
Not one of you has presented a single fact. You’re all giving opinions, do you not recognize that?
We can go back and forth all day.
I have yet to see one peer reviewed study or statistic that shows the vaccine is effective at preventing infection or transmission posted in this thread.
I asked to show me the data that the vaccine works. Your statements are based on assumptions that the vaccine works as a typical vaccine, which it does not.
If the vaccine prevented transmission and infection I would get it. The facts show otherwise.
Prove us wrong. We can wait....
....It is stated directly on the CDC website that the vaccine has not been proven to prevent transmission or infection.
There's certainly nothing wrong with reviewing the available evidence and forming an opinion on whether you would want the vaccine.
Misrepresenting the available evidence, or the the CDCs current understanding on the likely effects of vaccination on transmission, is not an opinion, it's false information.
What the CDC actually says is that the research to quantify the degree to which the Covid vaccine reduces transmission is currently ongoing, but that the vaccines currently in use act by reducing viral load, and that likelihood of transmission of respiratory viruses correlates to quantity of viral shedding.
The CDC has even go so far as to say that those who have been fully vaccinated and are at least two weeks out from their vaccination no longer need to quarantine due to a close-contact exposure, this is because there is sufficient evidence combined with established science on viral transmission to state that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of a vaccinated individual transmitting the virus.
guest1163268
2,215 Posts
I also hear that there is a construct that already exists for people considered dangerous to others.
You don't have a driver's license, you don't drive. You haven't been inoculated, you stay home and isolate.
The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few!