(So glad I stumbled across this website again after almost 6 years! I need to change my username because I am not an aspiring nurse anymore, I have been a nurse for almost 3 years! ?)
Anyway, I really do not want to take this new covid vaccine. I know I can’t be the only one who feels this way. Typically I am not an anti-vaxxer but something about this illness is making me think otherwise. For personal reasons I really do not want to take it when available at my hospital, but I’m afraid it will be mandatory. I am almost considering finding a new job if my hospital forces us all to take it. What a shame because I do like my job and wouldn’t know what else to turn to that isn’t nursing, because chances are most healthcare related places of employment will likely require all employees take it.
I want to use the excuse of it being against my religion but I already took the flu vaccine this year. I have nothing against the flu vaccine but didn’t necessarily want it, but my hospital practically FORCED everyone to take it unless they grant you an exemption. I’m afraid they’ll question me why I took the flu shot but cannot take the covid vaccine.
What do you guys think about this? Will you be taking the vaccine? I just want us to be able to make our own decisions about this. If patients can refuse medications, procedures, and treatments, why can’t healthcare workers do the same? I read in multiple articles it will not be required by the federal government but each state and employer can decide whether or not it will be mandatory.
And forget the $1500 “stimulus check” that may be offered if you take it. All the money in the world would not change my mind about taking the vaccine. I feel as though if you have to bribe people to take it, something is peculiar.
I don’t know why this is bothering me so much. It should be a choice in my opinion. But by telling a few friends about not wanting it I feel judged. I have worked with covid patients multiple times since I am one of the younger nurses who does not have any kids/am pregnant. I feel like week after week I was always chosen to go to the covid section. At first I was mad but now it doesn’t bother me. I am not afraid to be near covid patients. Luckily through all this time I haven’t caught it. I always tell people I’d rather catch it than get this vaccine. That’s how strongly I feel against taking the vaccine. All of my non-nursing who have had covid are covered and thriving. To me catching it isn’t the biggest deal but others have called me selfish because I could be spreading it to others. Why is it looked at as selfish for not wanting to inject something into MY body. #mybodymychoice
Am I thinking about this too much? What would you do?
I want to emphasize that this is speculative (I know you weren't necessarily claiming otherwise, in fairness).
For one, discussing different "strains" of the virus is probably a little misleading, and largely the result of over-simplified reporting of scientific findings. Of course the virus mutates over time, but small variations in the virus found at different times or locations are not clearly distinct from each other either in terms of how the virus affects people, or how one's immune system interacts with it. It is probably more correct to say that many isolates of SARS-COV2 exist than that there are different 'strains.'
Admittedly, this type of information is difficult to porifice. There are many discussions of 'strains' and their various effects in the media and even in scientific journals, but not a ton of compelling data to conclusively prove anything more than what we already know - this virus, like all others, mutates.
Secondly, and more to the point, it's very much an open question right now how susceptible people who've had covid are to reinfection, and how soon. While I am admittedly speculating myself, I think the following statements are more likely true than not:
- People who have had covid19 are less likely to get it again in the immediate future than people who haven't. Short term immunity, while not universal, seems to exist.
- People who are susceptible to reinfection may be so less because of encountering a different strain than because of mounting an ineffective adaptive immune response (I'll explain below). However, even the concept of dormant covid19 has not, to the best of my knowledge, been definitively shot down, though there have been at least some documented cases of reinfection by second exposure as proven by genetic sequencing
- I've seen no evidence at all the multiple covid19 infections makes one less likely to get covid19 than a single infection does. If the problem lies in the adaptive immune system rather than viral mutation, then the converse is disturbingly plausible.
There is a real lack of data about covid-19 reinfection and what that reinfection says about an individual's immune response. What's really interesting is that the data from the vaccine trials are incidentally some of the best data I've seen yet on the subject.
In the Pfizer trial specifically, a little over 500 people known to have tested positive for covid-19 were included in both the vaccinated group and the placebo group. The results of the trial were as follows:
In the placebo group 164 out of 17720 participants who had never been covid positive developed symptomatic covid-19 during the trial. So 0.92% developed covid-19.
Also in the placebo group, 1 out of 567 participants who had previously tested positive for covid-19 developed symptomatic covid-19 again. So 0.018%. We should note that this study is not powered to come up with any reasonable CI for the rate of reinfection among positive patients, but the difference between previously positive and negative participants is stark enough to be noteworthy at least.
In the vaccinated group, 1 out of 526 participants who were previously positive again developed symptomatic covid-19. Again, not adequately powered to detect any real difference, but it's interesting that the vaccinated and placebo groups had very similar results when only looking at people who've had covid-19 previously.
Finally, in the vaccinated group, 8 out of 17,637 participants who were previously covid negative developed covid-19. So a rate of 0.045%. Once again, the trial wasn't powered to make this conclusion, but it's notable that vaccination performed substantially better than prior infection in the prevention of subsequent infection.
The moderna vaccine trial produced fairly similar results, although the covid-positive-but vaccinated group produced no new symptomatic infections.
It's hard to draw super firm conclusions from this data. Too little, too soon. But I'd keep an eye out for more data from these and other vaccine trials for some of the best info we're likely to see on covid-19 reinfection.
Well, I hope that they let the unvaccinated "placebo" group remain unvaccinated for at least another year. I had heard discussion from a doctor https://apnews.com/article/health-paul-thomas-portland-tetorifice-oregon-48d917259b7985e6e335c67773507c62(the same one that published the peer review study that I linked earlier https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/groundbreaking-study-shows-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children and just had his medical license suspended in part for raising questions about the safety of vaccinations by the Oregon Board of Medicine) that he believes that they will vaccinate the placebo group in the name of "ethics" (it would be unethical to not vaccinate people with an effective vaccine). However, he believes that the vaccine will ultimately make one more succeptible to subsequent Covid 19 strains (and here I don't quite understand his reasoning, but I believe he is basing his conclusions at previous data from attempted SARs vaccines that were mRNA based). In any case he believes that vaccine companies will require the placebo group to be vaccinated to obscure what would otherwise be convincing data that the Covid vaccine will actually increase morbidity with subsequent viral exposure. Good cohort studies of those who vaccinate verses those who choose not to vaccinate would shed light on this issue, but I am not sure they are being done (but they would be rather simple to conduct at this point).
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
39 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
Well, I hope that they let the unvaccinated "placebo" group remain unvaccinated for at least another year. I had heard discussion from a doctor https://apnews.com/article/health-paul-thomas-portland-tetorifice-oregon-48d917259b7985e6e335c67773507c62(the same one that published the peer review study that I linked earlier https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/groundbreaking-study-shows-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children and just had his medical license suspended in part for raising questions about the safety of vaccinations by the Oregon Board of Medicine) that he believes that they will vaccinate the placebo group in the name of "ethics" (it would be unethical to not vaccinate people with an effective vaccine). However, he believes that the vaccine will ultimately make one more succeptible to subsequent Covid 19 strains (and here I don't quite understand his reasoning, but I believe he is basing his conclusions at previous data from attempted SARs vaccines that were mRNA based). In any case he believes that vaccine companies will require the placebo group to be vaccinated to obscure what would otherwise be convincing data that the Covid vaccine will actually increase morbidity with subsequent viral exposure. Good cohort studies of those who vaccinate verses those who choose not to vaccinate would shed light on this issue, but I am not sure they are being done (but they would be rather simple to conduct at this point).
I am wondering aloud why you are inclined to believe reprimanded and discredited people when the majority of the evidence is in contradiction to their opinions. Why would you believe this pediatrician relative to vaccines? Should I wonder if you also believe that vaccines cause autism?
It's kind of embarrassing that you believe that Lifesite is a credible citation or source of information. Holy hell.
I am wondering aloud why you are inclined to believe reprimanded and discredited people when the majority of the evidence is in contradiction to their opinions. Why would you believe this pediatrician relative to vaccines? Should I wonder if you also believe that vaccines cause autism?
It's kind of embarrassing that you believe that Lifesite is a credible citation or source of information. Holy hell.
I don't necessarily believe him, but I do consider his opinion. Also, I posted his peer reviewed study previously the Lifesite refers to the peer reviewed cohort study. I would argue that being suspended does not automatically "discredit" someone It was done on an "emergency basis" and he was not provided with a hearing largely as a result of attention surrounding his published study. As for Wakefield and Autism his finding were roundly discredited to my satisfaction many years ago. I did not discredit his assertions without review, but did not find them to hold up upon any serious analysis. Still, the point about letting the "placebo" arm of the vaccine trials along with new cohort studies remains a concern for me (I hope they occur).
Well, I hope that they let the unvaccinated "placebo" group remain unvaccinated for at least another year. I had heard discussion from a doctor https://apnews.com/article/health-paul-thomas-portland-tetorifice-oregon-48d917259b7985e6e335c67773507c62(the same one that published the peer review study that I linked earlier https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/groundbreaking-study-shows-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children and just had his medical license suspended in part for raising questions about the safety of vaccinations by the Oregon Board of Medicine) that he believes that they will vaccinate the placebo group in the name of "ethics" (it would be unethical to not vaccinate people with an effective vaccine). However, he believes that the vaccine will ultimately make one more succeptible to subsequent Covid 19 strains (and here I don't quite understand his reasoning, but I believe he is basing his conclusions at previous data from attempted SARs vaccines that were mRNA based). In any case he believes that vaccine companies will require the placebo group to be vaccinated to obscure what would otherwise be convincing data that the Covid vaccine will actually increase morbidity with subsequent viral exposure. Good cohort studies of those who vaccinate verses those who choose not to vaccinate would shed light on this issue, but I am not sure they are being done (but they would be rather simple to conduct at this point).
I've seen headlines about offering the Pfizer offering the vaccine to the placebo group. You're certainly right that more time for the placebo group to differentiate from the vaccinated group would've yielded very interesting data. But I have no idea why you attribute Pfizer's decision to some kind of conspiracy theory when their stated reason makes perfect sense for reasons both ethical and public-relations.
Also, read the links you post and apply some critical thinking. The "study" in question was of 3300 of the doctor's own patients (confounding variable #1) and merely shows that vaccinated children come in for medical care more often than unvaccinated children. Hmmm... can't imagine why that might happen. The article you linked, and presumably the study's author (the thoroughly unblinded Pediatrician with obvious conflict of interest) then concluded that this could only be because unvaccinated children are healthier.
This is a garbage study, at least as reported in the link you provided. You understand why, right?
Well, I hope that they let the unvaccinated "placebo" group remain unvaccinated for at least another year. I had heard discussion from a doctor https://apnews.com/article/health-paul-thomas-portland-tetorifice-oregon-48d917259b7985e6e335c67773507c62(the same one that published the peer review study that I linked earlier https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/groundbreaking-study-shows-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children and just had his medical license suspended in part for raising questions about the safety of vaccinations by the Oregon Board of Medicine) that he believes that they will vaccinate the placebo group in the name of "ethics" (it would be unethical to not vaccinate people with an effective vaccine). However, he believes that the vaccine will ultimately make one more succeptible to subsequent Covid 19 strains (and here I don't quite understand his reasoning, but I believe he is basing his conclusions at previous data from attempted SARs vaccines that were mRNA based). In any case he believes that vaccine companies will require the placebo group to be vaccinated to obscure what would otherwise be convincing data that the Covid vaccine will actually increase morbidity with subsequent viral exposure. Good cohort studies of those who vaccinate verses those who choose not to vaccinate would shed light on this issue, but I am not sure they are being done (but they would be rather simple to conduct at this point).
OMG, Myoglobin.
You are citing one of the biggest anti-vax quacks there is. He has made himself into the "niche" and "savior" everybody in the PNW goes to when they are terrified of vaccines. The guy sells essential oils in his office and is against MMRs....among other things. The "research" he does is not research. Anybody with the most rudimentary understanding of science can read the things "Dr" Paul Thomas touts, or his books! - and know he is a charlatan.....bring on Jenny McCarthy at this point.
I've seen headlines about offering the Pfizer offering the vaccine to the placebo group. You're certainly right that more time for the placebo group to differentiate from the vaccinated group would've yielded very interesting data. But I have no idea why you attribute Pfizer's decision to some kind of conspiracy theory when their stated reason makes perfect sense for reasons both ethical and public-relations.
Also, read the links you post and apply some critical thinking. The "study" in question was of 3300 of the doctor's own patients (confounding variable #1) and merely shows that vaccinated children come in for medical care more often than unvaccinated children. Hmmm... can't imagine why that might happen. The article you linked, and presumably the study's author (the thoroughly unblinded Pediatrician with obvious conflict of interest) then concluded that this could only be because unvaccinated children are healthier.
This is a garbage study, at least as reported in the link you provided. You understand why, right?
I agree this is a study weakness. I do not attribute Pfizer's decision to offer the vaccine as conspiracy but point out the MD's opinion (that it might be). I merely wish for good cohort data. His study was peer reviewed and is of decreased value because it was a cohort study and not a blinded RCT, still is is one of the only of its type to be conducted.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
I don't necessarily believe him, but I do consider his opinion. Also, I posted his peer reviewed study previously the Lifesite refers to the peer reviewed cohort study. I would argue that being suspended does not automatically "discredit" someone It was done on an "emergency basis" and he was not provided with a hearing largely as a result of attention surrounding his published study. As for Wakefield and Autism his finding were roundly discredited to my satisfaction many years ago. I did not discredit his assertions without review, but did not find them to hold up upon any serious analysis. Still, the point about letting the "placebo" arm of the vaccine trials along with new cohort studies remains a concern for me (I hope they occur).
That pediatrician's patient interaction and vaccine malpractice discredits him. Why would you want to inform your own opinion with a discredited opinion? Opinions that are poorly supported and in conflict with known evidence are not compelling.
I agree this is a study weakness. I do not attribute Pfizer's decision to offer the vaccine as conspiracy but point out the MD's opinion (that it might be). I merely wish for good cohort data. His study was peer reviewed and is of decreased value because it was a cohort study and not a blinded RCT, still is is one of the only of its type to be conducted.
I didn't read the study itself. I don't know where it was published, who peer-reviewed it, or crucially what the conclusions were in the original publication. It's not like peer-review makes a study bulletproof anyway.
But it's beyond obvious that the study design and findings couldn't possibly support a conclusion that vaccinated children are less healthy than unvaccinated children, much less that vaccines are a cause of ill health. That's just not how the scientific process works.
May as well add mho in here. I am NOT getting the vaccine. mRNA tech is still too new. I was in the Navy when the flu vaccine first came out and yes they tried it on the military first. Almost did not survive it. But, now take it every year. Also take the pneuo . at least once every 5 yrs. Reasoning: Have been tested and still get tested once a week due to my job and have been (knock on wood) negative. Do NOT practice masking all the time, only at work. Will wait and if I get it and survive, then, will have immunity the natural way. By the way, feds said at one time, everyone will have "herd immunity" by next May, before the vaccine was pushed. Anyone like me, who has CAD, HTN, extremely scarred up lungs, COPD, chronic pancreatitis and insulin dep. diabetes has to die of something. Covid numbers are based on a lot of false positives and doctors being encouraged to call everything Covid related. It is a Virus, not the end of the world. The media has blown this way out of the water, but, we are going to vaccinate dear old grandma who is a 100yrs old has Alz., can't walk, can't feed herself, incont of B/B, in a nsg. home, against Covid, because her grandchild, who comes to see her once or twice a year, wants her to live forever. Yeah, right.
Well, I hope that they let the unvaccinated "placebo" group remain unvaccinated for at least another year. I had heard discussion from a doctor https://apnews.com/article/health-paul-thomas-portland-tetorifice-oregon-48d917259b7985e6e335c67773507c62(the same one that published the peer review study that I linked earlier https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/groundbreaking-study-shows-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children and just had his medical license suspended in part for raising questions about the safety of vaccinations by the Oregon Board of Medicine) that he believes that they will vaccinate the placebo group in the name of "ethics" (it would be unethical to not vaccinate people with an effective vaccine). However, he believes that the vaccine will ultimately make one more succeptible to subsequent Covid 19 strains (and here I don't quite understand his reasoning, but I believe he is basing his conclusions at previous data from attempted SARs vaccines that were mRNA based). In any case he believes that vaccine companies will require the placebo group to be vaccinated to obscure what would otherwise be convincing data that the Covid vaccine will actually increase morbidity with subsequent viral exposure. Good cohort studies of those who vaccinate verses those who choose not to vaccinate would shed light on this issue, but I am not sure they are being done (but they would be rather simple to conduct at this point).
The Physician's license was suspended for negligently promoting disproven and misleading vaccine claims which resulted in harm to his patients.
You referenced that study before, and it was pointed out to you that what the study found is that parents who are less likely to vaccinate their children are also less likely to bring their kids to the doctor's office in general, which is not at all surprising, it did not show that children who's parents avoid doctors are 'more healthy'.
As for requiring those in the the Covid vaccine placebo groups to become vaccinated there has been no proposal to do this, and actually each of the trials includes longitudinal placebo group study arms.
May as well add mho in here. I am NOT getting the vaccine. mRNA tech is still too new. I was in the Navy when the flu vaccine first came out and yes they tried it on the military first. Almost did not survive it. But, now take it every year. Also take the pneuo . at least once every 5 yrs. Reasoning: Have been tested and still get tested once a week due to my job and have been (knock on wood) negative. Do NOT practice masking all the time, only at work. Will wait and if I get it and survive, then, will have immunity the natural way. By the way, feds said at one time, everyone will have "herd immunity" by next May, before the vaccine was pushed. Anyone like me, who has CAD, HTN, extremely scarred up lungs, COPD, chronic pancreatitis and insulin dep. diabetes has to die of something. Covid numbers are based on a lot of false positives and doctors being encouraged to call everything Covid related. It is a Virus, not the end of the world. The media has blown this way out of the water, but, we are going to vaccinate dear old grandma who is a 100yrs old has Alz., can't walk, can't feed herself, incont of B/B, in a nsg. home, against Covid, because her grandchild, who comes to see her once or twice a year, wants her to live forever. Yeah, right.
You realize this is not logical, and you are the exact person that would benefit from the vaccine vs getting it “in the wild”, right?
That pediatrician's patient interaction and vaccine malpractice discredits him. Why would you want to inform your own opinion with a discredited opinion? Opinions that are poorly supported and in conflict with known evidence are not compelling.
I disagree. 80% of his patients were vaccinated. The only thing (according to the interview where I listened to him last night) that he did different was to offer the parents "informed consent" as required by Oregon law. Giving them the choice between the CDC schedule and alternative vaccine schedule. His study is interesting, but weak without supporting studies. I would like to see these done with better cohorts perhaps Amish children that don't vaccinate. Also, I believe Finland had a larger cohort study that might provide better insight.
myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN
1,453 Posts
Well, I hope that they let the unvaccinated "placebo" group remain unvaccinated for at least another year. I had heard discussion from a doctor https://apnews.com/article/health-paul-thomas-portland-tetorifice-oregon-48d917259b7985e6e335c67773507c62(the same one that published the peer review study that I linked earlier https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/groundbreaking-study-shows-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children and just had his medical license suspended in part for raising questions about the safety of vaccinations by the Oregon Board of Medicine) that he believes that they will vaccinate the placebo group in the name of "ethics" (it would be unethical to not vaccinate people with an effective vaccine). However, he believes that the vaccine will ultimately make one more succeptible to subsequent Covid 19 strains (and here I don't quite understand his reasoning, but I believe he is basing his conclusions at previous data from attempted SARs vaccines that were mRNA based). In any case he believes that vaccine companies will require the placebo group to be vaccinated to obscure what would otherwise be convincing data that the Covid vaccine will actually increase morbidity with subsequent viral exposure. Good cohort studies of those who vaccinate verses those who choose not to vaccinate would shed light on this issue, but I am not sure they are being done (but they would be rather simple to conduct at this point).