Mandated Flu vaccine?

msn10 · Sep 27, 2011

In the US, it's actually 70-90% in working age adults.

Yes, but, I didn't say working adults, the rest of the article reads as follows:

In years when the vaccine strains are not well matched to circulating strains, vaccine effectiveness can be variably reduced. For example, in a study among persons 50-64 years during the 2003-04 season, when the vaccine strains were not optimally matched, inactivated influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 60% among persons without high-risk conditions, and 48% among those with high risk conditions, but it was 90% against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization (Herrera, et al Vaccine 2006). A study in children during the same year found vaccine effectiveness of about 50% against medically diagnosed influenza and pneumonia without laboratory confirmation (Ritzwoller, Pediatrics 2005). However, in some years when vaccine and circulating strains were not well-matched, no vaccine effectiveness can be demonstrated in some studies, even in healthy adults (Bridges, JAMA 2000). It is not possible in advance of the influenza season to predict how well the vaccine and circulating strains will be matched, and how that match may affect the degree of vaccine effectiveness.

Bruce_Wayne, ASN, RN · Sep 27, 2011

If you don't get a flu shot you have to wear a mask during your entire shift, and nobody wants to do that so they get the shot.

msn10 · Sep 27, 2011

You really think in absolutes, don't you?

Quite the opposite, that is why I am against MANDATORY vaccines or you loose your job. That is quite absolute. Some people on this thread said that is the case for them. I am saying that if you can't promise me that I won't get the flu and that there aren't side affects (which I know darn well there are) then I should not be mandated to get the shot. It is just unfair.

linearthinker, DNP, RN · Sep 27, 2011

We had the mask option at the hospital for a few years, but as of last year the inoculation was mandatory (as it should be), by the deadline, or the employee was terminated effective the day after the deadline (which was 10/31). They fired about a dozen people on 11/01. I suspect each fo those non-complaint souls thought they wouldn't really get fired. I am sure the organization will get closer to 100% compliance this year, lol.

It is a mandatory condition of employment per the contract at my new postion (out patient). There is a whole list of vaccines and positive titers I must maintain current documentation for at all times. There is a mandatory vaccine schedule, and that includes annual influenza.

If I had a problem with it, I wouldn't have signed the contract. No one is 'violating my rights' unless I am being mandated to work there and then to submit to immunization against my will. That isn't the case, e.g. no violation.

MunoRN, RN · Sep 27, 2011

Yes, but, I didn't say working adults, the rest of the article reads as follows:

When discussing the effectiveness of immunizations in healthcare workers, the rate of effectiveness in the population from 18-65 is the pertinent demographic.

MunoRN, RN · Sep 27, 2011

So it's ok if a immunocompromised patient gets flu x, y, or z from you when the vaccine only covered flu a, b, and c? If we're putting the patients first, then we need to avoid giving them all the things that the flu vax doesn't protect against. If you're ever around babies, RSV will kill them just as quick as the flu, so until Synagis is available to the masses, we should be masking.
Everyone on my unit got sick last winter, except for me. Not because the flu shot "gave them the flu." (And I still consider someone saying, "I got the flu after getting the shot" as not saying they got the flu from getting the vax, but if it makes you feel smart to say, "You can't get the flu from the shot!" go right ahead.) But I didn't catch or spread any of the crap that was going around that's not covered by the flu vax.
Yet *I* am the one that doesn't care about my patients. I say if you aren't willing to wear a mask all winter long, it's YOU that doesn't care about the patients.

If the CDC said that wearing a mask all winter long was recommended for patient safety then I would do that as well. But there is no evidence to suggest that masks are as effective, much less more effective, than immunizations. There are flu strains that come about, usually later in the season, that the fall flu shot didn't cover, at my facility when this occurs all staff must wear masks if an un-protected strain is in the area. In the case of RSV outbreaks, yes everyone should wear masks. If RSV outbreaks occurred at the same time every year, then we'd wear masks during that time, but unlike the flu, RSV outbreaks aren't that frequent or that predictable.

MunoRN, RN · Sep 27, 2011

Quite the opposite, that is why I am against MANDATORY vaccines or you loose your job. That is quite absolute. Some people on this thread said that is the case for them. I am saying that if you can't promise me that I won't get the flu and that there aren't side affects (which I know darn well there are) then I should not be mandated to get the shot. It is just unfair.

Unfair to whom? I am fully aware of the potential side effects yet still choose to be vaccinated. I don't enjoy the side effects any more than you do. This rationale wouldn't fly in any other patient safety scenario. I risk my back every time I turn a patient or clean them up, would I be justified in saying I shouldn't be required to clean up a patient sitting in their diarrhea because of the potential adverse effects to my back. Lead doesn't fully protect me in the cath lab, would it be acceptable to say we are no longer going to do cath codes because of the risks? There are risks to blood draws and IV therapy, could an acute care nurse say they aren't going to do either anymore and expect to keep their job?

The purpose of immunization is not necessarily to achieve 100% immunity. It's to prevent outbreaks, which can be done with only 70-90% effectiveness (or even much less). It's like knocking over a row of dominoes. Put a whole bunch of dominoes on end in close proximity to each other, knock one down and they'll all fall. Take the same group of dominoes except start with half of them already down, most of the other dominoes now won't fall.

It's quite possible that an un-immunized person can go for many, many years without getting the flu. This is thanks to everyone else who gets vaccinated and the resulting herd immunity. Not being immunized is essentially reaping the rewards of other people's risks, which I'm fine with if immunization is contraindicated in your particular situation, but if I'm taking the same risks that you would be so that you can benefit without the risks, that seems a bit selfish.

msn10 · Sep 27, 2011

This is thanks to everyone else who gets vaccinated and the resulting herd immunity....
but if I'm taking the same risks that you would be so that you can benefit without the risks, that seems a bit selfish.

Done arguing, all I said is I am wearing a mask, that should be my right. All the scenarios you gave are choices, and this is mine. Haven't had the flu or the shot in 10 years. You don't know how sick I get from the shot. No, I don't get the flu, but I get darn sick and it lasts for days. Don't think it is selfish to protect myself from something I know will make me sick by refusing to take it for something that has a 50% chance (on any given year) of not protecting me.

The risks are greater than the 'reward' for me. Now the whooping cough is only good for 3 years? You can still get the chicken pox with the shot, and we just had a person in the area get the measles who was already immune.

I think there needs to be a great deal more testing on these on other drugs.

cherrybreeze, ADN, RN · Sep 27, 2011

So it's ok if a immunocompromised patient gets flu x, y, or z from you when the vaccine only covered flu a, b, and c? If we're putting the patients first, then we need to avoid giving them all the things that the flu vax doesn't protect against. If you're ever around babies, RSV will kill them just as quick as the flu, so until Synagis is available to the masses, we should be masking.
Everyone on my unit got sick last winter, except for me. Not because the flu shot "gave them the flu." (And I still consider someone saying, "I got the flu after getting the shot" as not saying they got the flu from getting the vax, but if it makes you feel smart to say, "You can't get the flu from the shot!" go right ahead.) But I didn't catch or spread any of the crap that was going around that's not covered by the flu vax.
Yet *I* am the one that doesn't care about my patients. I say if you aren't willing to wear a mask all winter long, it's YOU that doesn't care about the patients.

Um....what?

Who said you didn't care about your patients?

I said if you are vaccinated, you don't need to wear a mask. How does that become, if I don't wear a mask, I don't care about patients? I said it's not NECESSARY to wear a mask if you've been vaccinated. If I would find out, from legit research, that all HCP's should wear masks during flu season whether or not they've gotten the flu shot, of course I would wear one. But you cannot say that because I don't wear one, since I don't *have* to, that that means I don't care. Illogical.

cherrybreeze, ADN, RN · Sep 27, 2011

Quite the opposite, that is why I am against MANDATORY vaccines or you loose your job. That is quite absolute. Some people on this thread said that is the case for them. I am saying that if you can't promise me that I won't get the flu and that there aren't side affects (which I know darn well there are) then I should not be mandated to get the shot. It is just unfair.

Done arguing, all I said is I am wearing a mask, that should be my right. All the scenarios you gave are choices, and this is mine. Haven't had the flu or the shot in 10 years. You don't know how sick I get from the shot. No, I don't get the flu, but I get darn sick and it lasts for days. Don't think it is selfish to protect myself from something I know will make me sick by refusing to take it for something that has a 50% chance (on any given year) of not protecting me.
The risks are greater than the 'reward' for me. Now the whooping cough is only good for 3 years? You can still get the chicken pox with the shot, and we just had a person in the area get the measles who was already immune.
I think there needs to be a great deal more testing on these on other drugs.

You DO have a choice, it just might not be the one you want. You don't HAVE to work somewhere that mandates vaccination. Any employer can set the guidelines and requirements for employment. If you don't like it, work somewhere else....that's the bottom line.

Ldial1 · Oct 1, 2011

How many of you that are pro-vaccine are also pro-abortion?
And if you ARE pro-abortion, isn't the movement about a woman's right to choose, and shouldn't every single person have the right to choose what goes in and out of their bodies?
Vaccines of any kind, should never be mandated for any person for any reason.

How exactly does pro-vaccine correlate to pro-abortion? The one is a life changing event the other is there to help prevent sickness...

jocelynlpn, LPN · Oct 3, 2011

I work in a nursing home, and all my residents get the flu shot once a year. I had my very first flu shot last year when I started working there, and ended up having the flu for the first time over Christmas. I am still trying to figure out how my employer feels about us refusing the flu shot. But if all of the residents in long term care get vaccinated, is it really that important that I do too? :confused: