(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?
When I had Covid I asked my provider "if I died of an MI right now would it be a Covid death". She said "yes" because I was positive for Covid. Now I have no previous diagnosis of anything. But, as a 50 year old male with a BMI of 27 (overweight), sedentary job, somewhat poor diet I am at high risk of having an MI, or stroke at all times. Maybe, Covid could have been the thing that "pushed me over the edge" (had that occurred) or maybe it would have just been bad timing. Over the years I've cared for 100's (maybe 1000's) of people in their 20's, 30's, and 40's, and 50's with a plethora of conditions usually associated with people much older. What I am saying is that the current "default" system is to classify every hospitilzation or death where someone has Covid as "covid related". I'm not even sure you would disagree that this is the current process. If it is not please educate me (and I'm serious here) as to what the current process is to determine a Covid related death (or just being in the hospital) verses one where Covid is present, but not the critical or significant factor in their being there.
As measured by D-dimer, risk of thromboembolic events are significantly higher in someone who has covid, 75% of those with Covid have significantly elevated D-dimer levels. We not only observe a correlation between Covid and thromboembolic events like MI and stroke, we also know the mechanisms; manipulation of ACE-II and cytokine mediation of the coagulation cascade. So if you have an MI during an active Covid infection, there is little to no chance that the Covid did not contribute to your death.
If what you're saying is that if someone might have eventually died of something else then they didn't actually die of what they died of, then that's a bit absurd. Everyone who dies of cancer would have died of something else eventually. For all we know, someone who dies in a car crash might have died later the same day of an MI, does that mean people don't die from car crashes?
These were all measured and reported in the currently ongoing trials, so I'm not clear what you're proposing.
The trials did not look at those who did not receive a second dose, or a dose from a different manufacturer in any great numbers. Also, the numbers were modest compared to the "millions" of available data points now emerging. At almost every hospital you have at least 30% that do not want the vaccine who provide for a "ready made" control group.
As measured by D-dimer, risk of thromboembolic events are significantly higher in someone who has covid, 75% of those with Covid have significantly elevated D-dimer levels. We not only observe a correlation between Covid and thromboembolic events like MI and stroke, we also know the mechanisms; manipulation of ACE-II and cytokine mediation of the coagulation cascade. So if you have an MI during an active Covid infection, there is little to no chance that the Covid did not contribute to your death.
If what you're saying is that if someone might have eventually died of something else then they didn't actually die of what they died of, then that's a bit absurd. Everyone who dies of cancer would have died of something else eventually. For all we know, someone who dies in a car crash might have died later the same day of an MI, does that mean people don't die from car crashes?
D-dimer is very non specific and many things that will elevate inflammation will increase D-dimer levels. What I am saying is that 100's of thousands of people will die from MI's, strokes, and cancer every year. With Covid "most" people are going to get this disease at some point and it will be a co-occurring condition in some of the cases. In any case it sounds like you believe that every case where someone is hospitalized or dies with Covid is currently counted. At least that is a starting point for discussion. There is no current distinction being made (you think that is appropriate, and I believe it to be problematic).
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
4 hours ago, myoglobin said:
I subscribe to the latest journals but I consider opinion from all sources. If something is bias (left or right wing) it does affect credibility, but it does not automatically discredit an argument or news item (especially if like the quotes that I provided they can be independently verified). Why not discuss (or even debate) the underlying issue(s) without the ad hominems? I always try to examine different perspectives. If I am in a room full of conservatives I tend to be the most hated person in the room. Conversely, if I am in a room full of liberal/socialist I will often create equal dislike. My intent is to examine issues from different perspectives and at some point arrive at something that approaches truth.
So you will read the opinions of discredited people and consider them as if the credibility of the author or publisher have no bearing on the credibility of the content...is that correct? Then you recommend that other professionals read and consider those opinions, right? It's normal to wonder if another health professional also engages in that behavior in their professional education and practice.
Facts about the science of, well, everything are completely unrelated to left wing v right wing politics. Whether or not we should vaccinate during a pandemic should be completely unrelated to political leanings. Whether an individual is conservative or liberal doesn't determine credibility. Making claims which cannot be supported with facts and evidence determines credibility. Repeating or defending misinformation colors credibility. Things like that.
As measured by D-dimer, risk of thromboembolic events are significantly higher in someone who has covid, 75% of those with Covid have significantly elevated D-dimer levels. We not only observe a correlation between Covid and thromboembolic events like MI and stroke, we also know the mechanisms; manipulation of ACE-II and cytokine mediation of the coagulation cascade. So if you have an MI during an active Covid infection, there is little to no chance that the Covid did not contribute to your death.
1 hour ago, myoglobin said:
D-dimer is very non specific and many things that will elevate inflammation will increase D-dimer levels. What I am saying is that 100's of thousands of people will die from MI's, strokes, and cancer every year. With Covid "most" people are going to get this disease at some point and it will be a co-occurring condition in some of the cases.
I find it so hard to follow your logic. It is absolutely true that D-dimer can be elevated due to medical conditions other than a Covid-19 infection. But what is your point? Don’t you think that it’s quite serious that it’s so often elevated with Covid infections and that higher D-dimer levels in Covid-19 patients is associated with a higher risk of critical illness, thrombosis, acute kidney injury and mortality?
Reading your posts it seems to me that you are constantly trying to downplay the risks of this disease and the magnitude of this pandemic. Am I reading you wrong?
You are correct however that "untangling" the cases where it is a primary or significantly contributing factor from those situations where it is not is quite challenging. Take these statistics from Sweden https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ . They point to less than around 250 deaths from Covid in those under 60. If you limit it to those under 50 it drops further to less than 100. Now what I don't know is if there method of calculating covid deaths differs materially from that used in the United States.
This is one more example of me really not understanding the point you wish to make. Is is that less than a 100 and 250 sound like small numbers? I mean you’re looking at a country about the size of California with a population about the same as North Carolina’s. Roughly 90% of Covid-19 deaths are in the age group 70 or older. And approximately 96.5% of the deaths are in the 60 and above age group. But what’s your point? I’m genuinely confused.
a. The Covid pandemic is serious, but the response is far worse especially the lockdowns. Most people (50 and younger) have a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality.
b. There is confounding of cases that are attributed to the Covid 19 and those caused by other conditions (where someone happens to have covid).
c. The best response is a combination of extreme risk mitigation for those most at risk (subsidized rent/mortgage, delivery of groceries/meds, priority being given high quality PPE like N-95/face shields, first priority after health care workers to Covid vaccine if they want it) and at the same time reopening the economy with limitations on capacity and other risk mitigation efforts. This is important as it helps generate the revenue to pay for the other mitigation efforts.
What if I did use sources that you don't approve of in my professional life? Working in a state with Independent practice I have the right to use whatever interventions that I deem appropriate. How does that in any way further our discussion on this topic? How will it improve our interaction or understanding of these issues?
Pro-vaccine here. Anyone anti COVID science is an idiot. I'm already getting my 2nd vaccine this week. Get the vaccine.
-From the frustrations of a bedside COVID nurse
a. The Covid pandemic is serious, but the response is far worse especially the lockdowns. Most people (50 and younger) have a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality.
b. There is confounding of cases that are attributed to the Covid 19 and those caused by other conditions (where someone happens to have covid).
c. The best response is a combination of extreme risk mitigation for those most at risk (subsidized rent/mortgage, delivery of groceries/meds, priority being given high quality PPE like N-95/face shields, first priority after health care workers to Covid vaccine if they want it) and at the same time reopening the economy with limitations on capacity and other risk mitigation efforts. This is important as it helps generate the revenue to pay for the other mitigation efforts.
These are the same points that you’ve repeated over and over again. You think the lockdowns are worse than the pandemic. That’s an opinion, not a fact. I don’t see how you or anyone else for that matter, can make that determination at this point in time.
Countries around the world have tried to battle this pandemic in many different ways on different timelines. The pandemic is far from over. We don’t know how the pandemic would have evolved in any country if that country had chosen another path. Or how things would have developed if we hadn’t discovered vaccines so quickly. And we never will. The only thing we can be reasonably sure of, is that it’s too soon to make a final analysis.
This is an extremely complex situation and I’ve told you before, you are looking for simple solutions. Your ”Barrington plus” is something you find appealing but all you’re really suggesting is a humongous experiment, likely ideologically motivated, that you have no way of knowing the outcome of.
It is quite likely that Covid deaths are undercounted in many countries, yet you appear to insist that the opposite is true.
You never answered the questions about D-dimer and 100 and 250 deaths in Sweden? What was your point?
41 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
What if I did use sources that you don't approve of in my professional life? Working in a state with Independent practice I have the right to use whatever interventions that I deem appropriate. How does that in any way further our discussion on this topic? How will it improve our interaction or understanding of these issues?
I’m not sure if you were asking me? But if you were, the answer is simple. I would only see a provider who practices according to evidence-based medicine. I certainly wouldn’t trust a provider who gets his or her information from sites that peddle conspiracy theories.
So when you say that you’re allowed to use any interventions you deem appropriate, does that include quackery? Can you ”treat” patients despite a complete lack of evidence that the treatment is efficacious? Or safe...
I don’t think that your ability to use whatever interventions you deem appropriate furthers our discussion at all or improves anyone’s understanding of anything. I’m sorry, but once again I fail to understand what your saying/asking? Not being facetious or snarky, I simply don’t get your point.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
My primary position is simple:
a. The Covid pandemic is serious, but the response is far worse especially the lockdowns. Most people (50 and younger) have a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality.
b. There is confounding of cases that are attributed to the Covid 19 and those caused by other conditions (where someone happens to have covid).
c. The best response is a combination of extreme risk mitigation for those most at risk (subsidized rent/mortgage, delivery of groceries/meds, priority being given high quality PPE like N-95/face shields, first priority after health care workers to Covid vaccine if they want it) and at the same time reopening the economy with limitations on capacity and other risk mitigation efforts. This is important as it helps generate the revenue to pay for the other mitigation efforts.
What if I did use sources that you don't approve of in my professional life? Working in a state with Independent practice I have the right to use whatever interventions that I deem appropriate. How does that in any way further our discussion on this topic? How will it improve our interaction or understanding of these issues?
C. The best response is that which is least expensive to implement on a broad level across the range of the economic spectrum of the population. The best response includes unified messaging with public health rather than political ambitions or agendas in control. The best response requires that a significant portion of the population achieve long term vaccine mediated immunity. Failure to achieve that will result in ongoing illnesses, hospitalizations and death.
You only have a right to your opinions and practice preferences as long as they do not jeopardize the care of the people seeking professional help from you. There are standards of practice in every state. Sourcing discredited opinions does nothing to further any discussion, interaction or understanding.
C. The best response is that which is least expensive to implement on a broad level across the range of the economic spectrum of the population. The best response includes unified messaging with public health rather than political ambitions or agendas in control. The best response requires that a significant portion of the population achieve long term vaccine mediated immunity. Failure to achieve that will result in ongoing illnesses, hospitalizations and death.
You only have a right to your opinions and practice preferences as long as they do not jeopardize the care of the people seeking professional help from you. There are standards of practice in every state. Sourcing discredited opinions does nothing to further any discussion, interaction or understanding.
I have never had a discussion concerning any of my political opinions or those involving Covid with any client. 90% of my clients are far "to the left" of anyone on this forum Are you saying that I don't have the right to argue my sincerely held beliefs even on a forum designed for people to do just that? My primary concern is that I may be compelled to take a vaccination that I do not wish to take. I would wager that at least 25% of Americans feel exponentially stronger about this issue than me. If you cannot even have a discussion with me (someone who was first in both his undergrad and graduate classes despite my limitations) how are you going to convince the "average Red state person" to take your vaccine and achieve the goals that we both desire?
C. The best response is that which is least expensive to implement on a broad level across the range of the economic spectrum of the population. The best response includes unified messaging with public health rather than political ambitions or agendas in control. The best response requires that a significant portion of the population achieve long term vaccine mediated immunity. Failure to achieve that will result in ongoing illnesses, hospitalizations and death.
You only have a right to your opinions and practice preferences as long as they do not jeopardize the care of the people seeking professional help from you. There are standards of practice in every state. Sourcing discredited opinions does nothing to further any discussion, interaction or understanding.
If we take the 350K plus dead in the United States so seriously that we will close businesses and compel people to wear a mask under penalty of fines (or jail) then how do we tolerate cigarette smoking which kills around 500K each and every year and do virtually nothing? Not only that but state after state makes access to THC ever more easy despite evidence that its long term use decreases cognition.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
As measured by D-dimer, risk of thromboembolic events are significantly higher in someone who has covid, 75% of those with Covid have significantly elevated D-dimer levels. We not only observe a correlation between Covid and thromboembolic events like MI and stroke, we also know the mechanisms; manipulation of ACE-II and cytokine mediation of the coagulation cascade. So if you have an MI during an active Covid infection, there is little to no chance that the Covid did not contribute to your death.
If what you're saying is that if someone might have eventually died of something else then they didn't actually die of what they died of, then that's a bit absurd. Everyone who dies of cancer would have died of something else eventually. For all we know, someone who dies in a car crash might have died later the same day of an MI, does that mean people don't die from car crashes?