Leaving Your Job Due to Mandate

Updated:   Published

nurses-how-do-you-feel-about-vaccine-mandate.jpg.1f603dac0ba30c9c0e3fa89f88ead78c.jpg

For those of you who have recognized your employer can terminate you for not taking the COVID vaccine and have decided on or are considering employment elsewhere please share your experiences here. How do you feel about having to make that choice? 

The purpose of this thread is not to condemn those making this decision or debate whether they should vaccinate or not. 

Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
Just now, lMCRN said:

 

 

1 minute ago, lMCRN said:

Thank you Nikeasnetty but with all due respect if we keep an open mind and up to date on the science we would not be having this conversation. 

Perhaps. But, the conversation isn't really about the science is it? It's about trusting the science, the sources of information. The science isn't really agreed with by everyone like things that are well understood and have long precedent. If everyone automatically agreed with everything a particular scientists said that would be disastrous.

In this case, we have factors in the public discourse that invite skepticism. Concerns made in good faith must be addressed with respect and open ears, not dismissed out of hand. I've layed out my learning. Til I waded through the articles, I was HIGHLY suspicious. Now I'm willing to consider it.

But the dismissive attitude had to be ignored in order to get me here. You guys need to listen and try to understand. Otherwise you are part of the problem. Saying "the science! The science I say!! Safe and effective!" Is exactly the rhetoric the skeptics don't trust (and I can't blame them). I don't trust people that parrot talking phrases either. Please try to contribute to understanding with respectful recognition of concerns before dismissal. That will actually help the situation. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
48 minutes ago, nikeasnetty said:

To be fair and square, how about if employees who've had the COVID-19 infection be directed to check their titer before being forced to take the vaccine? Just like any other virus, e.g. hepatitis B, MMR, etc, the doctor usually tells you to get the vaccine if your titer is below protective level. And then recheck the level again some time after vaccination, to compare. Just a thought.

Because, for some strange reason, the medical experts have decided vaccines matter and natural immunity doesn't (at least that is the messaging). One could argue its "better to be on the safe side" and thus, more protection is better. There is good data to suggest both natural and vaccine immunity are effective. But also data to suggest the vaccine  consistently improves immunity protection whether natural antibodies are present or not. I don't think we really know how much protection is actually necessary yet. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I guess it’s just about some peoples  distrust of science even from highly credible sources, not sure why this vaccine is so very different but we are doing all we can to cajole, educate, beg, and mandate those fearful of the vaccine for covid for everyone including them. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
14 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

PPD and IGRA (Quantiferon and T Spot) test for an immune response to TB. A person successfully treated for LTBI and active disease may still show a positive immunity response. And a person can have a negative test and be positive for TB. I used TB as an example to show not all infections evoke the same sort of immune response. 

Sure. I get that. And that's correct. However, given titers are drawn for viruses where the question is "is there immune protection, ie antibodies", I think the poster you responded to has a valid question. "Why is this virus treated so differently from other viruses?". That's a valid question. With tb, you don't want to have been exposed. A positive requires further investigation. Others like vericella, we want to see antibodies. In the case off covid, we want to see anti bodies, just like vericella or tetorifice. But titers aren't even considered for covid. Why not? It's a valid question. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I am with you and agree with what you mentioned here:

"But the dismissive attitude had to be ignored in order to get me here. You guys need to listen and try to understand. Otherwise you are part of the problem. Saying "the science! The science I say!! Safe and effective!" Is exactly the rhetoric the skeptics don't trust (and I can't blame them). I don't trust people that parrot talking phrases either. Please try to contribute to understanding with respectful recognition of concerns before dismissal. That will actually help the situation."

IMHO, because we are all new to the nature and behavior of this virus, that's why I keep an open mind and continuously doing my research on it to see what the different scientists and doctors have discovered in their practice in regards of this COVID-19, and not fixing my eyes on just what politicians or majorities say.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.
1 hour ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Sure. I get that. And that's correct. However, given titers are drawn for viruses where the question is "is there immune protection, ie antibodies", I think the poster you responded to has a valid question. "Why is this virus treated so differently from other viruses?". That's a valid question. With tb, you don't want to have been exposed. A positive requires further investigation. Others like vericella, we want to see antibodies. In the case off covid, we want to see anti bodies, just like vericella or tetorifice. But titers aren't even considered for covid. Why not? It's a valid question. 

Because it's a novel virus and there isn't enough data to demonstrate which antibody and at what level would confer immunity. And with mutations and variants a  level demonstrating immunity 6 months ago may be different today. 

BTW, tetorifice is not a virus. 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, nikeasnetty said:

Saying "the science! The science I say!! Safe and effective!" Is exactly the rhetoric the skeptics don't trust (and I can't blame them). I don't trust people that parrot talking phrases either.

Noting that the science, data, evidence and expert analysis has determined that the vaccines are safe and effective is the federal public health position and stance. It is not rhetoric. The message is not insincere and it is fully based in meaningful and accurate content.  The intention is to promote public health and pandemic mitigation. 

The only people parroting talking points are those elevating poorly sourced fears and concerns which increase vaccine hesitancy.  It's crazy that self described skeptics are so willing to listen to and accept opinion which is unsupported by the science and data and expert opinion. Some of those skeptics even resort to crazy self treatment plans. That behavior, in reality, reflects gullibility rather than healthy skeptism. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
2 hours ago, lMCRN said:

You are not a victim if you chose not to get vaccinated and get hospitalized or worse. Why wouldn’t the world blame humans that choose not to be vaccinated for this crisis, my patients and family and staff were begging for a vaccine before it was authorized. Also to comment on the poor guy earlier, I broke my femur and went to the OR from the ER when I was 19, the delta surge has lowered the access to care in low vaccination areas because why? Rhetorical.  And our for profit health care system is mediocre in my opinion for the volume of funds swirling around ie ER charging $75 for “IV stick” and $10 for s 4x4. And who doesn’t think Medicare is socialized medicine. That’s for another very important thread, sorry. 

What other disease do we find it acceptable to socially and publicly "blame" patients for a decision that led to their illness?  Why are we picking COVID?

It's not too challenging to understand why people are skeptical, hesitant, and have doubts.  

Do you genuinely believe people have no reasons to be hesitant?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
1 hour ago, nikeasnetty said:

I am with you and agree with what you mentioned here:

"But the dismissive attitude had to be ignored in order to get me here. You guys need to listen and try to understand. Otherwise you are part of the problem. Saying "the science! The science I say!! Safe and effective!" Is exactly the rhetoric the skeptics don't trust (and I can't blame them). I don't trust people that parrot talking phrases either. Please try to contribute to understanding with respectful recognition of concerns before dismissal. That will actually help the situation."

IMHO, because we are all new to the nature and behavior of this virus, that's why I keep an open mind and continuously doing my research on it to see what the different scientists and doctors have discovered in their practice in regards of this COVID-19, and not fixing my eyes on just what politicians or majorities say.

I wish you showed up to this discussion 40 pages ago!

Yours is a balanced, sensible attitude.  People have been very one sided about this here.  They don't seem to realize how much their biased insensitive attitudes cause people to be more resistant to vaccination.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
2 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

Because it's a novel virus and there isn't enough data to demonstrate which antibody and at what level would confer immunity. And with mutations and variants a  level demonstrating immunity 6 months ago may be different today. 

BTW, tetorifice is not a virus. 

I never said it was a virus. I said we still check for titers to ensure the presence of immunity. That's not the case with TB. We are checking for exposure and potentially looking to see if x rays are needed. Tb is not related to the issue in question.

In any case, the question remains. It's a valid question. I agree with you. We don't know yet. So far I've seen reports that natural immunity is comparable to vaccination immunity. I've also seen reports that natural immunity persists for 12 months that they know so far. My guess is it is an "err on the side of caution" if I'm being charitable. But I hope you can at least see the argument. Perhaps it would be good to design a study around nurses who refuse vaccination. Check their titers and test them regularly. We don't know what we don't measure. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
9 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Noting that the science, data, evidence and expert analysis has determined that the vaccines are safe and effective is the federal public health position and stance. It is not rhetoric. The message is not insincere and it is fully based in meaningful and accurate content.  The intention is to promote public health and pandemic mitigation. 

The only people parroting talking points are those elevating poorly sourced fears and concerns which increase vaccine hesitancy.  It's crazy that self described skeptics are so willing to listen to and accept opinion which is unsupported by the science and data and expert opinion. Some of those skeptics even resort to crazy self treatment plans. That behavior, in reality, reflects gullibility rather than healthy skeptism. 

You should work for the CDC press office. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×

For 10gneedles/netty: we are all adults choosing to not take the vaccine is your choice, taking the vaccine was my choice based on the science etc we are part of the solution not part of the problem. It’s not a two way street we are in a very serious health care crisis that is global. If people were not DYING I could be more open to anti-vaccine points of view but this is not the case and from the current stats appears not being vaccinated is part of the problem. 
Also Remdesvir was approved for Emergency use Dec 2020, is that a sketchy drug also? Or receiving it in severe illness is OK when you declined the vaccine. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion