22,000 Nurses Refuse Mandatory Vaccinations

MunoRN, RN · Feb 6, 2016

You're ridiculous! Hand washing won't harm you, won't leave you paralyzed, possibly permanently, possibley may kill you! Flu vaccines can! The worst hand washing can do is leave your hands red, dry and irritated. There is a serious risk with the flu shot so a person should be able to make an informed decision whether they are willing to take that risk and frankly I think it is not worth it when the vaccine is mostly ineffective!
I think big pharma should be held accountable for the damage it causes and people should be able to sue them, but the govt is in collusion with the corporations against what is right for the American people! It's all about the money! Big pharma bribes many govt officials to get the legislation they want to keep making the profits and people's lives and safety be damned!
I remember when Gov Perry tried to mandate all female teens receive Gardasil no doubt as a reward for the millions Merck has given to his campaign and the Republican party! In case you don't know like other vaccines there have been serious side effects, even deaths from Gardasil.

Frequent hand washing can actually have more severe effects than just dryness, but I agree with your general point; comparing something with relatively few risks to something with well established immensely larger risks is ridiculous.

The flu vaccine is certainly not risk-free, there are a handful of deaths linked to the vaccine every year, but it saves lives in the neighborhood of about 4,500 every year. If you honestly believe that it does more harm than good then you really need to review basic math.

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize Big Pharma for profiteering, vaccines aren't one of them. You can actually still sue vaccine manufacturers in the US, you just have to file a claim with the 'vaccine court' first. The purpose of this separate liability system is that unlike regular medications where the benefit is for the same person taking the risk, it works different for vaccines where it's a shared benefit and shared risk, which is why there is a separate shared fund for those injured by vaccines. I agree with you that the system should "do what is right for the American people", but I feel that having far fewer people hospitalized and far few people dying from an avoidable illness is what's better.

Extra Pickles · Feb 6, 2016

ok arc1 I see I have touched a nerve so I'm sorry for that. I'm not sorry that I know things that you do not know or have different viewpoints. I'm not worked up but this looks like a very sensitive topic for you. You asked why I responded to someone without more information or so little information or something but I didn't think I had to say a minimum number of things to be counted. I said all that I wanted to say, so I guess I'm done speaking now. If you think the government, CDC, WHO, everyone else who says the flu shot is more pro than con then that's your choice. I will choose to become and stay educated on the topic and get my flu shot every year thanks. : )

jobellestarr · Feb 7, 2016

Can you expand on what your symptoms were?

Dikid · Feb 7, 2016

Being immunocompromised makes me very glad that hospital staff is fully vaccinated.

as a patient I would refuse the care of a nurse who is not vaccinated (if I knew)

working in healthcare makes me glad my coworkers are vaccinated. Vaccines save lives. Period.

*obviously, those who cannot be vaccinated for medically legitimate reasons should not be penalized

Maremma · Feb 8, 2016

We do not have "mandatory" flu vaccines at my work but they do offer and encourage them. If the nurse or aid chooses to refuse the vaccine they must wear a mask while on shift throughout the flu season. That seems like a more than reasonable compromise.I see those that wear masks throughout the season as the smarter people as it is.

Quite frankly people screaming in FAVOR of forced vaccination seem to have this crazy idea that if everyone takes these shots that miraculously no one will get the flu that year.

This is an extremely flawed logic. There are far to many strains of the flu and the vaccines that are created only cover 1-2 of these strains. The odds of them actually ever creating the right vaccine for the specific strain that hits an area seems slim. They have been about as accurate with their "educated guesses" on which strains will be what hits the community each year as the weatherman have been with their supposed "educated guesses" on our weather.

I have seen this happen more than once in our facility. I took the flu shot the first year. Had a horrible reaction to it AND then wound up with the flu! UGH

I did NOT take the shots after that and chose to wear the mask instead. Sure enough I was one of the very few that made it through the flu season without getting the flu.(You have to get it to transmit it to others) One after the other I saw coworkers go down with the flu. Took their shots mind you, became infected then passed it on before they were off work for a week or more. Not just one supposedly vaccinated employee. Almost ALL of them.

And again the next year and again and you see the pattern here?

In the past five years they have not correctly "guessed" the right strain to protect anyone in my area anyway. Seems to me the risks DO NOT far outweigh the "benefits" concerning flu shots.Perhaps if they could manage to guess the right strains for that year and remove the thimerosal, THEN it would make more sense to be so angry at the people that refuse to be injected.

I have had more than one patient wind up horribly affected by taking a flu or pneumonia shot. I've seen the "risk" side up close and personal. The neurologic damage does not always heal either. They wind up dead or long term care, their lives and the lives of their families ruined. For what?

A slim chance that they are actually going to guess the right strain and ACTUALLY protect the community from a flu epidemic? Save the pharm companies money by using thimerosal as an antimicrobial so they can crank out more multi dose vials?

To many people have this false sense of security from taking the flu shots. As nurses we should all know better and yet I see it happen year after year after year.

The exact same thing happens with the pneumonia vaccine. People take the shot and then are dumbfounded when they wind up with pneumonia.

Why aren't we questioning this instead of the people that are refusing to be injected with the wrong strain vaccines that contains a known neurotoxin?

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Feb 8, 2016

Do people not realize what the word "FORCED" means? It is absolutely not the same thing as "a condition of employment."

rac1, ASN, BSN, RN · Feb 8, 2016

May I ask where your 18% effectiveness rate comes from? I have been perusing the CDC site, and cannot find a report for this season (2015-2016). A link for a reliable source would add some weight to your claims.

Sure - here is a link: Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, 2005-2015 | Health Professionals | Seasonal Influenza (Flu)

Actually, 18% was the projected effective rate (for last year). Since I had to look the link up for you, I found that the adjusted rate was really 23%, a little higher, but not much.

elkpark · Feb 8, 2016

Actually, 18% was the projected effective rate (for last year). Since I had to look the link up for you, I found that the adjusted rate was really 23%, a little higher, but not much.

You say that like the onus is on someone else to verify the number you quoted. When you throw out a hard number like a percentage of vaccination effectiveness, it's up to you to provide documentation of the figure if you want anyone to take you seriously.

bellabellabijou · Feb 8, 2016

Most hospitals are now saying, "You have the right to refuse the flu vaccine but you will have to wear a mask for the duration of the flu season.". That seems acceptable to me. Considering we have no idea how effective the flu vaccine is until AFTER the end of the flu season (note in 2014 the flu vaccine was deemed as being pretty ineffective) it is only logical that EVERYONE wear a mask regardless of flu shot or not. That is pretty much the best way (though not perfect) to insure that protection from the flu is assured. But then again, being prudent is not always a hospital administrators best attributes

rac1, ASN, BSN, RN · Feb 8, 2016

You say that like the onus is on someone else to verify the number you quoted. When you throw out a hard number like a percentage of vaccination effectiveness, it's up to you to provide documentation of the figure if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Oh, no, that is really not how I mean it at all. I was just clarifying that I was wrong with the 18% I had quoted. There was absolutely no snark at all in my reply. It is awful how online communicating can be misconstrued so easily - especially in debates (especially since I was very obviously snarky in other posts regarding this issue). I didn't say it "like" anything. I just took the time to actually look at the percentage when I looked up the link. The 18% was something that stuck in my head last year. You are taking me the wrong way. I was happy to share the link. =) Peace!

Woopsadaisy · Feb 8, 2016

I don't care if someone is pro- or anti- vaccine. It is a personal decision.
I fully support the right to decline any medical treatment and oppose any government mandated mass vaccination.
This has nothing to do with my personal philosophy about the Flu vaccine. That is not the issue that needs to be debated. We should be debating our personal freedom as citizens and humans to choose what we accept into our bodies.
.

Thank you for your objectivity, balance, and ability to attempt to see this issue for the genuinely scary thing it is, and not the sensationalism over whether or not the flu vax is necessary, safe, or effective.

Mandating anything medical, to anyone, is unethically wrong.

If we start mandating for nurses, where will it stop?

Hmmm?

Stand up for what you believe in-- hospitals want this not because it is scientifically sound, but because they get money for having over 92% vaccination rate for nurses.

I am against this and I refuse to be a guinea pig. The fact that getting the flu vaccine doesn't mean I won't get the flu or that I will not transmit it. Masks, other than the N-95 ones, are ineffective and are not healthy for the wearer to wear 12 hour, or 8 hours at a time.

Unions have been fighting this since the 90's. It's an issue that comes and goes with surges in Pharma sales.

To get their numbers up, my hospital treied this last year and 3 of my coworkers who knew better got the vaccination last year so as not to have reactions. 2 had anaphylaxis, one had Guilanne-Barre like symptmons and was on prednisone into the summer. I know this because I took this straight to my union and helped to organize those who stand up for autonomy.

Interestingly, their numbers were greater than 96% last year, after the mandate, and this year, they never even pressed the issue, and there is not a masking policy.

Call their bluff. You have strength in numbers.

Patients over profits, equal healthcare for all.

Would you mandate meds for your patients?

*wait*-- maybe I don't really want to know the answer to that question?!

Just my 2 cents.

Woops

bellabellabijou · Feb 8, 2016

Flu vaccine manufacturers make a ton of money. And sometimes, like in 2014, the vaccine is pretty useless. But it's a money maker. And in an situation a couple of years ago, the vaccine was considered an emergency and was produced with no recourse by the recipient if the vaccine caused damage or death. In other words, nobody could be held responsible if the vaccine killed people. Just saying.

PS: I'm not against vaccines or mandatory requirement of them. It's just makes me wonder just how sure are we that these vaccines: 1) work 2) won't kill us.

22,000 Nurses Refuse *Mandatory* Vaccinations

22,000 Nurses Refuse Mandatory Vaccinations