Is someone justified in harassing someone to tell them if they got vaccinated or not?

macawake, MSN · Jul 22, 2021

????????????????????????

Wuzzie, we’d love to have you ???

Conqueror+, BSN, RN · Jul 22, 2021

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You don't think you've expressed your beliefs clearly enough in these threads for us to all understand?

Well OK then...

The only thing I've made clear is that respectful communication is needed from both sides. I have made 0 assertions About the vaccine and its efficacy. I have also not cited any sources addressing the vaccine and why someone should or should not receive it. You have no idea what I believe and you have no idea why.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 22, 2021

25 minutes ago, Conqueror+ said:

The only thing I've made clear is that respectful communication is needed from both sides. I have made 0 assertions About the vaccine and its efficacy. I have also not cited any sources addressing the vaccine and why someone should or should not receive it. You have no idea what I believe and you have no idea why.

In that case, my apologies, I confused your remarks with another.

MunoRN, RN · Jul 22, 2021

55 minutes ago, Conqueror+ said:

The only thing I've made clear is that respectful communication is needed from both sides. I have made 0 assertions About the vaccine and its efficacy. I have also not cited any sources addressing the vaccine and why someone should or should not receive it. You have no idea what I believe and you have no idea why.

I think we all agree that communication should be 'respectful', where I think we disagree with is how that is defined.

I would disagree that pointing out that lack of vaccination is detrimental to others and as a result people should get vaccinated counts as disrespectful communication, and that has seemed to be your argument.

Conqueror+, BSN, RN · Jul 22, 2021

Just now, MunoRN said:

I think we all agree that communication should be 'respectful', where I think we disagree with is how that is defined.

I would disagree that pointing out that lack of vaccination is detrimental to others and as a result people should get vaccinated counts as disrespectful communication, and that has seemed to be your argument.

Thats not my position at all. My position is that as soon as you call someone an idiot, coward or something else derogatory they stop listening. If you wouldn't use the language or tone with a patient you shouldn't be using it with each other. If you can't express yourself without doing that then thats a problem.

MunoRN, RN · Jul 22, 2021

And I agree that actually calling someone an idiot is disrespectful.

But the impression you've given is that simply pointing out false claims are false is disrespectful because it implies the person making false claims is an idiot.

One of your comments from the now closed Did you just try to bully me? thread:

Quote

So some people actually assert that fear and misinformation are the only possible reasons someone would refuse the vaccine. Thats an interesting position. You are relegating that person to the categories of coward or idiot. That explains the attitude towards them.

I would agree with you however that in the absence of a recognized contraindication to the vaccine, fear and misinformation are not the only reasons why someone would refuse the vaccine, amorality would be the other reason.

Conqueror+, BSN, RN · Jul 22, 2021

6 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

And I agree that actually calling someone an idiot is disrespectful.

But the impression you've given is that simply pointing out false claims are false is disrespectful because it implies the person making false claims is an idiot.

One of your comments from the now closed Did you just try to bully me? thread:

I would agree with you however that in the absence of a recognized contraindication to the vaccine, fear and misinformation are not the only reasons why someone would refuse the vaccine, amorality would be the other reason.

Not at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I have no problem with being asked a question or challenged. I simply have the right to not answer and getting aggressive and pissy about it won't make me forthcoming. I will most likely avoid any future conversations with that person.

MunoRN, RN · Jul 22, 2021

Just now, Conqueror+ said:

Not at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I have no problem with being asked a question or challenged. I simply have the right to not answer and getting aggressive and pissy about it won't make me forthcoming. I will most likely avoid any future conversations with that person.

I agree.

JKL33 · Jul 22, 2021

25 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I would agree with you however that in the absence of a recognized contraindication to the vaccine, fear and misinformation are not the only reasons why someone would refuse the vaccine, amorality would be the other reason.

I'd like to see full FDA approval for qualified vaccines.

This is from a basic news article (emphasis added):

Quote

The EUAs for COVID-19 vaccines were granted based on an average of 2 months of safety follow-up data.

Tice said full review requires companies to submit longer-term data on the vaccine’s safety, along with additional data on how well the vaccine protects against infection and severe disease.

I think this is a factor for some (possibly smaller but still significant) portion of those still expressing genuine hesitancy. Those who actually appear hesitant (instead of outright opposed) have been using this language all along and I believe it is their sincere concern. Even though I made a different choice based on my review of available data and my understanding of the risks/benefits, I have a hard time completely faulting some of these people in light of the fact that these vaccines are hanging out there without full approval for pretty much the same exact reasons for some of the hesitancy.

Interested in others' thoughts about this factor.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 23, 2021

52 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

I'd like to see full FDA approval for qualified vaccines.

This is from a basic news article (emphasis added):

I think this is a factor for some (possibly smaller but still significant) portion of those still expressing genuine hesitancy. Those who actually appear hesitant (instead of outright opposed) have been using this language all along and I believe it is their sincere concern. Even though I made a different choice based on my review of available data and my understanding of the risks/benefits, I have a hard time completely faulting some of these people in light of the fact that these vaccines are hanging out there without full approval for pretty much the same exact reasons for some of the hesitancy.

Interested in others' thoughts about this factor.

The concern about potential long term effects is contrived with the intention of creating doubt, distrust and/or hesitancy. There is no scientifically sound reason to worry that there might be long term negative consequences to these specific vaccines when there have been none for any other vaccine. Ever.

It is made up...imagined...fabricated...it's a lie. Their concern is sincerely based in BS.

MunoRN, RN · Jul 23, 2021

52 minutes ago, JKL33 said:

I'd like to see full FDA approval for qualified vaccines.

This is from a basic news article (emphasis added):

I think this is a factor for some (possibly smaller but still significant) portion of those still expressing genuine hesitancy. Those who actually appear hesitant (instead of outright opposed) have been using this language all along and I believe it is their sincere concern. Even though I made a different choice based on my review of available data and my understanding of the risks/benefits, I have a hard time completely faulting some of these people in light of the fact that these vaccines are hanging out there without full approval for pretty much the same exact reasons for some of the hesitancy.

Interested in others' thoughts about this factor.

I think part of the problem is that we tend to use "safety and efficacy" as though it's a single parameter that is being studied.

We are still awaiting the additional data that will better define the long term efficacy of the vaccines (ie exactly what portion of those vaccinated retain effective immunity at one year) which is what will better define the necessity and timing of booster doses.

But the duration of time that the vaccines, particularly the mRNA vaccines, have the potential to cause adverse effects is much shorter, so the data on the safety of the vaccines is effectively already in.

Your immune system destroys the mRNA at the same time it is reading the 'message' it is providing, so the potential for adverse effects caused by the mRNA protein itself lasts only a few hours. As with all vaccines, the more likely source of any adverse effects is the immune response the mRNA triggers, which could last as long a couple of weeks.

We're well over two weeks out from millions of vaccinations, so it's a bit sill to say we still don't really understand what the potential adverse effects could be. It was the presence of sufficient safety data, despite still awaiting more efficacy data, that led the FDA and it's related agencies in various countries to issue broad emergency use authorization.

The FDA certainly deserves some blame here, this isn't a particularly effective way to deal with the need to respond to pandemics, and this won't be the last one. The FDA has always been very hands-off once they've approved something, which is why they won't grant full approval with a qualifier that the timing of booster doses still needs to be defined. Albuterol for instance would be prohibited from being granted FDA approval based on their current rules, but the FDA hasn't issues so much as a statement on it. In order to effectively respond to future pandemics the FDA is going to have to be willing to move to more of a 'rolling approval' process.

JKL33 · Jul 23, 2021

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The concern about potential long term effects is contrived with the intention of creating doubt, distrust and/or hesitancy. There is no scientifically sound reason to worry that there might be long term negative consequences to these specific vaccines when there have been none for any other vaccine. Ever.

Then the common lay person is going to say let the FDA approve it then. With all due respect (sincerely) TMB, I am not going to engage this line of discussion any more, or at least right now. I feel it is functioning like an echo chamber and is not the most productive; it leads to no solutions and is a dead-end in my book.

I would like to discuss the issue I posted about. To reframe it, a health news source that turns up easily in a lay person's web search makes statements like those in the quote I already posted. It also displays it's "fact checked" status and check marks. They have included commentary from this person, who mentions that 2 months' safety data was used for EUA and that full approval would not be granted until longer-term safety data (than that) was available. [If it matters, I didn't cherry-pick this, I was curious what lay persons would see if they searched "when will covid vaccine be approved by FDA" or "why haven't covid vaccines received full approval" and this was simply the top hit].

I am not arguing on behalf of myself. I am reporting the types of things that lay persons genuinely looking for information can come across with ease.

Now, my more controversial stance is that the situation right now is that the vaccines are not fully approved in this country because reasons, while the average sincerely hesitant individual is or will be placed into a situation of (as they see it) taking a risk while the FDA takes their time and takes their 60 days to decide how they're going to evaluate the application and blah, blah, blah. What that is, is letting the masses worry about it while the FDA protects their own interests. And yes, I do know and believe that if the FDA does their job properly, that is in every single person's interest, society's interest, not just their own institutional interest. But it still doesn't feel completely fair at this juncture.

According to your argument about how it is BS that it is that this isn't pretty much completely safe, I agree! Well then our FDA should have a MUCH better publicity campaign explaining their process and that the hold-up isn't safety but the real reason. And they should kick it into high gear instead of having meetings to decide when they should meet. They appear to the public like THEY are hesitant to put their skin in the game, while everyone else is supposed to do exactly that.

You are not looking at this with much granularity. People ARE running into acquaintances on the street who tell them that so-and-so healthy friend/family member dropped dead 4 days after the vax. It is NOT that every single unvaxxed person is unvaxxed because they are drinking a steady diet of Q-cola. I am going to start getting serious about confronting some of these portrayals of people. They are lay people. They are the same people that bring their child to the ED because it had a fever, they gave tylenol and the fever went away but now it's back. THAT's what we are dealing with. Just run of the mill ignorance. My interpretations I am sharing are based on interactions in the ED and primary care.