Many hospitals mandate their nurses to receive influenza vaccinations each year during flu season. Those who decline are forced to wear a mask while at work during the season. For those who cannot get the vaccine (for example, those who are allergic to ingredients), this seems like unfair punishment for something that they did not choose!
I can understand mandating nurses who decline, because in my opinion, it is an incentive for the staff to receive the vaccine. However, for those who wish that they are able to be vaccinated, this seems like undue punishment! I know it is for their protection, but in my opinion, they should have the right to make that decision on their own.
Are there any specific stats you're looking for? Influenza vaccinations reduce hospitalizations and deaths due to the flu, the rates vary by year, but typically for every 4,000 people vaccinated, one death is prevented, and flu-related hospitalizations are decreased by about 85,000 per year thanks to influenza vaccinations.
I used to work in an allergy clinic. The large healtcare system nearby (which I now work for) has mandatory flu shots with exemptions for allergic reactions or religious reasons. We had 5 different employees of the large healthcare system make appts with us just so the allergy doc would sign the form stating they were allergic to the vaccine. They didn't want the testing done, just "sign here so I can get out of it". Doc refused to sign without testing. We did have one allow us to administer the vaccine in the office, divided dose, with close monitoring, and they were fine.
Egg allergy and pregnancy are NOT valid reasons to skip the flu shot. I've had the flu once, as a teenager, and it sucked. I get the flu shot every year and so does my family. Last year my youngest didn't get it and did get the flu, so he was sick for his entire spring break.
I'm guessing we all assumed that since you are a healthcare provider, you were fully capable of looking up that information yourself.
"you", in the collective, are making the allegation. "you" in the collective, are therefore responsible to prove your allegation. facts, citations. I like caramel popcorn, please.
Yeah! While you're at it, how about data on those stupid seatbelt things-my second cousin's Aunt used one and DIED when she ran her car off a 1000ft cliff! Oh, and how about that stupid rule about not eating before a surgical procedure? I think aspiration is a fallacy. Oh- those pesky 5 or is it 7 patient rights? Pfft. Who the heck thought up evidence based practices anyway? And what's wrong with running with scissors? It's all a nefarious plot by Beeeeg Farma I tells ya.
I am pro seat belt, even though my worst accident was with out one, and was one of those rare ones that wearing a seat belt may have been a bad thing. Because there are facts to back the up.
did you read the first page, never mind the rest. I stopped, it was a bunch of but ifs. with that many variable, how can a sane person make any claims???
In most studies, vaccine efficacy ranges from 30-60%, which is better than nothing, but not great. Considering the fact that there are very few adverse side effects from the vaccine, and I have RAD, 30% protection is hella better that 0%.
one out of 20 was a true test. and even that, ? control for confounding variable. "observational" fancy way to say anecdotal. what was the general health of all? what was the living situation for all? What was the vitamin status for all?
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
There are multiple studies and meta-analyses out there, and most of them show similar things - 30-60% efficacy. I feel no need to prove that to you. You clearly have your mind made up.
klone, MSN, RN
14,857 Posts
I'm guessing we all assumed that since you are a healthcare provider, you were fully capable of looking up that information yourself.