(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?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Whether the 1st amendment is unlimited has been settled law since the 1800's, the Supreme Court determined that it's not an unlimited right, and that public health and welfare can supersede the right of assembly including for religious reasons. There's no sign currently that the views of the Supreme Court are any different now. What governments can't do is limit gatherings only for religious purposes, but they can broadly limit gatherings of people to mitigate the spread of an epidemic.
Although this really shouldn't have to come into play when it comes to practicing Christianity, if someone's version of Christian worship involves contradicting the basic tenet to protect and show compassion for others, particularly the most vulnerable, then that's not Christian worship.
I don't think this is a new concept, it's the basic premise of most of our laws throughout history; you can chose to ignore the rights of others to their health and safety, but not without consequences. I'm not sure why you view your 'right' to enter a private business as negating a business owner's right to ensure a safe environment for themselves and their customers, particularly if that's what keeps their business viable.
Whether the 1st amendment is unlimited has been settled law since the 1800's, the Supreme Court determined that it's not an unlimited right, and that public health and welfare can supersede the right of assembly including for religious reasons. There's no sign currently that the views of the Supreme Court are any different now. What governments can't do is limit gatherings only for religious purposes, but they can broadly limit gatherings of people to mitigate the spread of an epidemic.
Although this really shouldn't have to come into play when it comes to practicing Christianity, if someone's version of Christian worship involves contradicting the basic tenet to protect and show compassion for others, particularly the most vulnerable, then that's not Christian worship.
I don't think this is a new concept, it's the basic premise of most of our laws throughout history; you can chose to ignore the rights of others to their health and safety, but not without consequences. I'm not sure why you view your 'right' to enter a private business as negating a business owner's right to ensure a safe environment for themselves and their customers, particularly if that's what keeps their business viable.
I do not believe that rights are unlimited. I do however believe that they are being interpreted frequently in a bias manner (left of center politically) and by autocrats who have one set of rules for themselves and their elite friends and another for working class Americans. I also do not believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our rights. I believe that all rights emanate from God and the consent of the governed and whenever a government abridges the natural right to life, liberty, and property "It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Where I live in Florida businesses are open, people are free to worship as they see fit and life goes on in spite of Covid. However, in places like California and New York businesses have been closed by institutional fiat, while at other time health officials have decided that people cannot even gather to worship in their own homes with their own families. Should those policies be imposed nationally by the Federal government, then it will be time for those of us who see it differently to perhaps leave this union and form our own where these rights are better respected.
I do not believe that rights are unlimited. I do however believe that they are being interpreted frequently in a bias manner (left of center politically) and by autocrats who have one set of rules for themselves and their elite friends and another for working class Americans. I also do not believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our rights. I believe that all rights emanate from God and the consent of the governed and whenever a government abridges the natural right to life, liberty, and property "It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Where I live in Florida businesses are open, people are free to worship as they see fit and life goes on in spite of Covid. However, in places like California and New York businesses have been closed by institutional fiat, while at other time health officials have decided that people cannot even gather to worship in their own homes with their own families. Should those policies be imposed nationally by the Federal government, then it will be time for those of us who see it differently to perhaps leave this union and form our own where these rights are better respected.
Restaurants that choose to remain open in California continue to operate as well
I do not believe that rights are unlimited. I do however believe that they are being interpreted frequently in a bias manner (left of center politically) and by autocrats who have one set of rules for themselves and their elite friends and another for working class Americans. I also do not believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our rights. I believe that all rights emanate from God and the consent of the governed and whenever a government abridges the natural right to life, liberty, and property "It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Where I live in Florida businesses are open, people are free to worship as they see fit and life goes on in spite of Covid. However, in places like California and New York businesses have been closed by institutional fiat, while at other time health officials have decided that people cannot even gather to worship in their own homes with their own families. Should those policies be imposed nationally by the Federal government, then it will be time for those of us who see it differently to perhaps leave this union and form our own where these rights are better respected.
I take it your not a Christian. No matter. Adults are competent enough to make their own decisions. Including weather or not to attend Church gatherings for obvious reasons. Wise enough to protect and assist the most vulnerable population as they have done for centuries. The constitution protects our civil liberties and relgieous freedoms. If it didn't we would not be a Free and Sovereign Nation, under God, as intended buy it's wise founders. We love our Country and what it stands for. The people have the right to govern it's government. That's why we mourn and Honor all who have given their lives to keep it that way.
I do not believe that rights are unlimited. I do however believe that they are being interpreted frequently in a bias manner (left of center politically) and by autocrats who have one set of rules for themselves and their elite friends and another for working class Americans. I also do not believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of our rights. I believe that all rights emanate from God and the consent of the governed and whenever a government abridges the natural right to life, liberty, and property "It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Where I live in Florida businesses are open, people are free to worship as they see fit and life goes on in spite of Covid. However, in places like California and New York businesses have been closed by institutional fiat, while at other time health officials have decided that people cannot even gather to worship in their own homes with their own families. Should those policies be imposed nationally by the Federal government, then it will be time for those of us who see it differently to perhaps leave this union and form our own where these rights are better respected.
I don't think the founding fathers could have been more clear that God, or more accurately anyone's view of God, is the final arbiter of our rights. They went out of their to ensure that people both have the right to their religious views and that people have the right to be free from someone's religious views.
They didn't make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of our rights either though, they created 3 equal branches of government, the Judicial branch interprets laws and settles disputes where laws conflict, but the legislative branch can then change those laws if they oppose the Judicial Branch's interpretations.
2 hours ago, myoglobin said:
Where I live in Florida businesses are open, people are free to worship as they see fit and life goes on in spite of Covid.
Except for the hundred or so Floridians a day for whom life doesn't go on in spite of Covid.
Maybe I'm being naïve, but I have to assume that there is some threshold where you would agree that the rights of your fellow Floridians to not die from a mitigatable epidemic would finally exceed your non-life sustaining rights, does such a threshold exist?
I am a Christian and the last time I checked the rate of death in Florida despite having a lower population is less than California or New York in spite of not having lock downs. There is no threshold where I would override fundamental liberties.
I am a Christian and the last time I checked the rate of death in Florida despite having a lower population is less than California or New York in spite of not having lock downs. There is no threshold where I would override fundamental liberties.
I don't think the founding fathers could have been more clear that God, or more accurately anyone's view of God, is the final arbiter of our rights. They went out of their to ensure that people both have the right to their religious views and that people have the right to be free from someone's religious views.
They didn't make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of our rights either though, they created 3 equal branches of government, the Judicial branch interprets laws and settles disputes where laws conflict, but the legislative branch can then change those laws if they oppose the Judicial Branch's interpretations.
Except for the hundred or so Floridians a day for whom life doesn't go on in spite of Covid.
Maybe I'm being naïve, but I have to assume that there is some threshold where you would agree that the rights of your fellow Floridians to not die from a mitigatable epidemic would finally exceed your non-life sustaining rights, does such a threshold exist?
Of course it is but I reject the thesis that lockdowns are helpful in facilitating life. Rather, I propose they increase death in a number of ways from increasing unemployment, depression, drug/alcohol abuse, delay of medical, worse educational outcomes for children, increases in childhood neglect care for other conditions (such as stroke, cancer, and MI's) and "elective" surgeries that can have important health consequence. These burdens would be unacceptable if lockdowns were effective however there is evidence that that they may not be effective https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/ and https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/. This makes them nothing less than human rights abuse (albeit well intentioned). I further submit that alternative approaches such those outlined in The Great Barrington Declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/ combined with extensive additional protections for the most vulnerable (deferred/free rent, free delivered groceries/food and other services) and voluntary vaccination(s) (with the oldest, sickest and health care workers receiving priority) are the best approach and have less negative consequences.
Of course it is but I reject the thesis that lockdowns are helpful in facilitating life. Rather, I propose they increase death in a number of ways from increasing unemployment, depression, drug/alcohol abuse, delay of medical, worse educational outcomes for children, increases in childhood neglect care for other conditions (such as stroke, cancer, and MI's) and "elective" surgeries that can have important health consequence. These burdens would be unacceptable if lockdowns were effective however there is evidence that that they may not be effective https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/ and https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/. This makes them nothing less than human rights abuse (albeit well intentioned). I further submit that alternative approaches such those outlined in The Great Barrington Declaration https://gbdeclaration.org/ combined with extensive additional protections for the most vulnerable (deferred/free rent, free delivered groceries/food and other services) and voluntary vaccination(s) (with the oldest, sickest and health care workers receiving priority) are the best approach and have less negative consequences.
The 'Great Barrington Declaration' came out in the first week of October, a week later came the response from more than 6,000 infectious disease experts, the John Snow Memorandum, which was a detailed rebuttal of the Great Barrington Declaration. The proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration have yet to offer any defense of their position as a response, effectively surrendering to the evidence based argument of the John Snow Memorandum.
There is no doubt that mitigating the effects of the Covid19 epidemic has adverse effects, which results in unintended deaths that possibly number in the hundreds, or possibly even thousands. But the the number of deaths just in the US from taking no mitigation measures ranges from about 2 million (the estimate backed by even Trump) to closer to 6 million if you apply the CFR to the US population.
Your cited 'evidence' that masks don't reduce deaths includes no comparative evidence of mask compliance with non-compliance. Studies that do show significant decreases in deaths with masking vs non-masking, including a difference in mortality of 130,000 over 6 months with better masking compliance, this is from Nature, which you have previously argued is a reliable source.
Statistics aside, I'm a lifelong Quaker, and as such find it ***ing disgusting that you are arguing that you aren't concerned whether other humans live or die because your Christian beliefs say you don't need to be concerned with that, and that your ability to pursue those "Christian" beliefs supersedes the right of others to be free from avoidable suffering and even death. If worshipping Christ hasn't taught you that those beliefs are clearly wrong that I really don't understand what it is that you have learned, if anything at all.
Observation: medical and nursing schools require vaccinations or proof of titers. Employers don't, I mean, most healthcare sites do not, though I've read on here a few do.
Twist: however, my employer did require that I prove MMR titers or vaccination(s).
For every HC worker who refuses the vaccine, route it to a general population vaccine pool. Members of the public can register for this pool and when one becomes available, can get vaccinated along with HC personnel, using the refused vaccine doses. USE THOSE VACCINES. Let's get going! This is taking a long time.
SIgned,
Someone who thought they would not get vaccinated but did.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
Whether the 1st amendment is unlimited has been settled law since the 1800's, the Supreme Court determined that it's not an unlimited right, and that public health and welfare can supersede the right of assembly including for religious reasons. There's no sign currently that the views of the Supreme Court are any different now. What governments can't do is limit gatherings only for religious purposes, but they can broadly limit gatherings of people to mitigate the spread of an epidemic.
Although this really shouldn't have to come into play when it comes to practicing Christianity, if someone's version of Christian worship involves contradicting the basic tenet to protect and show compassion for others, particularly the most vulnerable, then that's not Christian worship.
I don't think this is a new concept, it's the basic premise of most of our laws throughout history; you can chose to ignore the rights of others to their health and safety, but not without consequences. I'm not sure why you view your 'right' to enter a private business as negating a business owner's right to ensure a safe environment for themselves and their customers, particularly if that's what keeps their business viable.