I Really Do Not Want the COVID Vaccine ?

[AspiringNurse94]

(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?

[MunoRN, RN]

26 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

The fact that you consider religion "made up" doesn't mean that it isn't constitutionally protected by our First Amendment. Indeed, it is one of the primary reasons that this nation was created. The Declaration literally mentions God our current President Biden, and every President before him (as well as Vice President) believe in God (or profess to). Of course religion does not justify murder or other crime (although crime and murder and war are indeed done in the name of religion).  At the same time it is a fundamental basis for our form of government. 

There are people who believe they were required to murder someone by their religion beliefs, is that protected by the Constitution?

[OhHaiMark]

All of the disrespectful comments on this thread, especially directed at those who say they don't want the vaccine (at least not yet) is really disappointing. The respect for autonomy we are to practice as nurses with our patients should also extend to each other, especially when we are patients ourselves. Add the fact that we must all continue to mask and distance to protect each other regardless of whether we get the vaccine. The vaccine is for your own - not others - protection - until science can prove otherwise.

The U.S. government has done several things which make me leery of believing the attestations that the vaccine is safe, on top of the fact that the long term effects of the mRNA technology simply can't be known at this early juncture. Remember when masks were not recommended when this all began? Then suddenly, they were - the CDC didn't trust the public not to make a run for masks. I think that was a legitimate concern, but it doesn't change the fact that the recommendation was manipulated. Remember when 14 days was the quarantine recommendation? Now it's 7-10 days. Not because the science has changed, but because the thought is more people will comply.  The pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government have a lot riding on people taking these vaccines, and stemming the spread, monetarily and politically. People are going to continue to die from this even with the vaccine, unfortunately. If less people are masking and distancing because they think life its back to "normal", that's even scarier. 

For me, it is a risk-benefit calculation. If I was really at risk of death from COVID, I would want a vaccine, even one of these using the new technology. But since I'm not...I think I'd rather wait and see.

[toomuchbaloney]

49 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

The fact that you consider religion "made up" doesn't mean that it isn't constitutionally protected by our First Amendment. Indeed, it is one of the primary reasons that this nation was created. The Declaration literally mentions God our current President Biden, and every President before him (as well as Vice President) believe in God (or profess to). Of course religion does not justify murder or other crime (although crime and murder and war are indeed done in the name of religion).  At the same time it is a fundamental basis for our form of government. 

This is an entirely different topic for discussion, the role religion played in the development of this government.  Why not start a thread? That could be an entertaining and spirited discussion.

Religious exemption from compulsory vaccination is allowed.  I've cared for a number of children with vaccine preventable diseases because of those exemptions.  Measles, pertussis, HiB, Tetorifice.  Tetorifice is showy, very dramatic in the suffering when they arrive to the small local EDs. There are a number of religious communities in the midwest that refuse vaccination on religious grounds.  They were serviced by the PICU and regional transport team that I was a member of for a good spell. I benefited from lots of direct experience with contagious and vaccine preventable diseases for the first 10 or so years of my career.  After the HiB vaccine most of the kids we saw with HiB epiglotitis or meningitis were kids in those exempt communities.  The drop in community incidence with widespread vaccination was remarkable.

[toomuchbaloney]

The point in participating in widespread community vaccination is not whether you are at risk to die from the disease but whether you are at risk to spread the disease that might kill anyone.  

I don't trust Trump's government either, they are unreliable and dishonest.  I do trust the science.  I do trust the public health principles and strategies at play here, in spite of the attempts to politicize and propagandize the messaging from the CDC and NIH and the like. 

You have to cut through the noise that is intended to create doubt and concern. 

[Cowboyardee]

8 minutes ago, OhHaiMark said:

All of the disrespectful comments on this thread, especially directed at those who say they don't want the vaccine (at least not yet) is really disappointing. The respect for autonomy we are to practice as nurses with our patients should also extend to each other, especially when we are patients ourselves. Add the fact that we must all continue to mask and distance to protect each other regardless of whether we get the vaccine. The vaccine is for your own - not others - protection - until science can prove otherwise.

The U.S. government has done several things which make me leery of believing the attestations that the vaccine is safe, on top of the fact that the long term effects of the mRNA technology simply can't be known at this early juncture...

A caveat to start with: I've said a couple times on this thread that I don't believe the vaccines should be mandatory at this time, due to concerns about both the autonomy of healthcare personnel, the lowered bar for safety that comes with emergency use authorization rather than full FDA approval, and the possibility of stirring up a bigger backlash against the vaccine.

With that said, and with no disrespect intended, I tend to notice that those opposed to the vaccine have different standards of evidence when making discussing statements that support their case rather than weaken their arguments. For example, it is not currently proven that the vaccine will prevent the spread of asymptomatic covid-19, and it is also not currently proven that the vaccine will have any substantial long-term side effects to the overwhelming majority of people who are vaccinated. Vaccine skeptics seem to treat the first statement as unproven-so-highly-dubious, while treating the second statement as quite-likely-because-no-one-knows.  However, a reasonable analysis seems to lead to the opposite conclusions.

Simply understanding of how vaccines work in the immune system should seriously call into question how the vaccine could have such a profound effect on the incidence of symptomatic infection without also limiting asymptomatic spread. Meanwhile, we do have a couple months of data on the side effects of pfizer's vaccine, knowing that most reactions to and side effects from vaccines of all types tend to show up in the first couple months after adminstration; also we can examine mrna technology's use so far in the field of oncology, where it has shown no serious safety concerns. Here's more info:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278?cacheBust=1508171532658#Sec11

Both statements are admittedly speculative, but that doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions about the likelihood of each. 

Also, on the first page of this thread, I linked to the phase 3 clinical trial of pfizer's vaccine, and another poster summed up the findings below mine. My optimism in the vaccine is largely based on that information, while skeptics appear mostly to point towards conflicting statements the CDC has made in the past about different subjects as reasons for their concern. This suggests one of the following. Either you:

- Haven't read the results of the vaccine's clinical trial and/or don't consider it important to your decision-making process. Or...

- You interpret the results of the trial much differently than I do. Or...

- You worry that the trial's results are fudged in one way or another.

Which is it? Am I understanding you wrong? 

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

51 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

This is an entirely different topic for discussion, the role religion played in the development of this government.  Why not start a thread? That could be an entertaining and spirited discussion.

Religious exemption from compulsory vaccination is allowed.  I've cared for a number of children with vaccine preventable diseases because of those exemptions.  Measles, pertussis, HiB, Tetorifice.  Tetorifice is showy, very dramatic in the suffering when they arrive to the small local EDs. There are a number of religious communities in the midwest that refuse vaccination on religious grounds.  They were serviced by the PICU and regional transport team that I was a member of for a good spell. I benefited from lots of direct experience with contagious and vaccine preventable diseases for the first 10 or so years of my career.  After the HiB vaccine most of the kids we saw with HiB epiglotitis or meningitis were kids in those exempt communities.  The drop in community incidence with widespread vaccination was remarkable.

There is no religious exemption for RN's at the hospital where I used to work and even previous reactions to vaccines are very narrowly defined (you must show you have had a negative reaction to every flu vaccine option). It is true that some states allow religious exemptions for kids. However, mandatory vaccination (or fear that it will occur) is a very real concern. We are for example considering relocating to rural Wyoming (from Florida) and starting our own business  telepsych business where we feel there is a greater chance that we will not lose our first or second Amendment rights (some states may simply choose to not enforce federal mandates). 

[toomuchbaloney]

35 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

There is no religious exemption for RN's at the hospital where I used to work and even previous reactions to vaccines are very narrowly defined (you must show you have had a negative reaction to every flu vaccine option). It is true that some states allow religious exemptions for kids. However, mandatory vaccination (or fear that it will occur) is a very real concern. We are for example considering relocating to rural Wyoming (from Florida) and starting our own business  telepsych business where we feel there is a greater chance that we will not lose our first or second Amendment rights (some states may simply choose to not enforce federal mandates). 

Of course reactions are narrowly defined.  In the absence of specific and precise definition of terms any person off of the street can claim that they've had an allergic reaction or are allergic to this or that because of this or that symptom or experience.  You've noticed this tendency when speaking to the public about medication or other allergies, right? 

I do agree that widespread fear of mandated vaccinations should be a concern to us.  The vast majority of the available evidence reassures us that, in this country, widespread compliance with recommended vaccination schedules saves lives, saves health care dollars and improves quality of life, particularly among the poor. There is no correlation between vaccine recommendations and the 2nd Amendment unless we consider poorly founded fears that might be amplified for political or other agenda as the shared connection, IMHO. 

I have family in WY. There aren't many people who live there, compared to Florida.  My family is well connected in the state's scientific community. They are hoping that the average citizens of the state will practice good mitigation techniques and will accept vaccination when it's widely available. 

After that raid on that young woman's home conducted by the FL governor and his police, I can understand why you might feel that your 1st amendment rights could be in jeopardy if you didn't leave.  What next, right? WY is a lovely state. 

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

The Second Amendment concerns are relative to the new administration and the promises to take AR10's and AR15's (which I legally own) not to vaccination. However, my hope was that a state which supported Trump by almost 50% might be less inclined to enforce new federal mandates that confiscated guns or which penalized people for refusing vaccinations.  Succession does not seem like a viable option, so the next best thing is to find states that might be inclined to nullify (as much as possible) federal laws they consider unconstitutional .

[OhHaiMark]

25 minutes ago, Cowboyardee said:

A caveat to start with: I've said a couple times on this thread that I don't believe the vaccines should be mandatory at this time, due to concerns about both the autonomy of healthcare personnel, the lowered bar for safety that comes with emergency use authorization rather than full FDA approval, and the possibility of stirring up a bigger backlash against the vaccine.

With that said, and with no disrespect intended, I tend to notice that those opposed to the vaccine have different standards of evidence when making discussing statements that support their case rather than weaken their arguments. For example, it is not currently proven that the vaccine will prevent the spread of asymptomatic covid-19, and it is also not currently proven that the vaccine will have any substantial long-term side effects to the overwhelming majority of people who are vaccinated. Vaccine skeptics seem to treat the first statement as unproven-so-highly-dubious, while treating the second statement as quite-likely-because-no-one-knows.  However, a reasonable analysis seems to lead to the opposite conclusions.

Simply understanding of how vaccines work in the immune system should seriously call into question how the vaccine could have such a profound effect on the incidence of symptomatic infection without also limiting asymptomatic spread. Meanwhile, we do have a couple months of data on the side effects of pfizer's vaccine, knowing that most reactions to and side effects from vaccines of all types tend to show up in the first couple months after adminstration; also we can examine mrna technology's use so far in the field of oncology, where it has shown no serious safety concerns. Here's more info:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278?cacheBust=1508171532658#Sec11

Both statements are admittedly speculative, but that doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions about the likelihood of each. 

Also, on the first page of this thread, I linked to the phase 3 clinical trial of pfizer's vaccine, and another poster summed up the findings below mine. My optimism in the vaccine is largely based on that information, while skeptics appear mostly to point towards conflicting statements the CDC has made in the past about different subjects as reasons for their concern. This suggests one of the following. Either you:

- Haven't read the results of the vaccine's clinical trial and/or don't consider it important to your decision-making process. Or...

- You interpret the results of the trial much differently than I do. Or...

- You worry that the trial's results are fudged in one way or another.

Which is it? Am I understanding you wrong? 

Thanks for your thoughtful comment cowboyardee. I will say that a lot of the article you linked is beyond my level of true understanding. But essentially, while I am reassured by the data that has been put forth so far (that I can understand), I simply do not feel that enough time has passed for me to feel comfortable with the vaccines using new technology. It's not really a concern for me that the data have been manipulated. Rather, they are not as complete as I would like given the short time frame. Of course, there are lots of people who are willing and ready to take a vaccine now, and for them I am glad that one and soon another are available.

You mention that the way vaccines work should ensure being vaccinated stems the spread. I know what you mean and I hope in this case it is true and we can eventually have this vaccine-induced "herd-immunity". But, we don't know for sure yet. If we are to be consistent in our treatment of this virus as a very serious, potentially-life-threatening matter, the masks had better stay on until we know more, even while some among us are vaccinated.  

I think that it is reasonable for people to be hesitant in this situation, and they should not be ridiculed for that (not saying you are, I'm speaking in general). In my view, this is different than other "anti-vaxxer" issues. This is a new disease and a new technology, and the burden of proof is not on the public, but on those who would ask us to get a vaccine. Also, we need information presented in a way that is easy to understand and addresses some of the most pressing questions - even if the answer is "we don't know that yet."
 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, myoglobin said:

The Second Amendment concerns are relative to the new administration and the promises to take AR10's and AR15's (which I legally own) not to vaccination. However, my hope was that a state which supported Trump by almost 50% might be less inclined to enforce new federal mandates that confiscated guns or which penalized people for refusing vaccinations.  Succession does not seem like a viable option, so the next best thing is to find states that might be inclined to nullify (as much as possible) federal laws they consider unconstitutional .

Your fears about weapon confiscation are probably best directed to another thread.  

How would you imagine that the federal government might seek to penalize people for not complying with a nonexistent vaccine mandate? Have you given the scenario that much thought? Who will issue the vaccine mandate, do you think? Do you think that private businesses will mandate the vaccine and then the government will enforce employer mandates? 

Help me understand.

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

I believe that such restrictions would likely emanate from the private sector in terms of employment opportunities or even the ability to patronize businesses. I am also concerned that in order to travel on public transportation or certainly internationally that Covid vaccination will become mandatory. These concepts are being openly discussed in European newspapers and among some of their elected officials. 

[toomuchbaloney]

8 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

I believe that such restrictions would likely emanate from the private sector in terms of employment opportunities or even the ability to patronize businesses. I am also concerned that in order to travel on public transportation or certainly internationally that Covid vaccination will become mandatory. These concepts are being openly discussed in European newspapers and among some of their elected officials. 

So if the private sector mandates covid vaccination for their employees how does the government penalty that you mentioned before figure in?  Would you imagine public transit vaccination mandates would be state or federal issues? Would you imagine that they might include full immunization status or just covid? 

I think that each country gets to decide for itself how to protect it's citizens and economy as related to this pandemic, don't you?