SansNom

There is no doubt that many, many people don't understand how masks work and often misuse them. That does not negate the fact that when used correctly, masks help. Personally, now that masks mandates in my area are non-existent, I usually carry a mask but only put it on when it medically makes sense to me. I don't wear it walking around alone in the grocery store, but if there are a few people in line I'll be standing close to when I check out then I'll throw it on because it makes sense in terms of droplet precautions at that point. The average, non-medical person does not usually understand exactly why and how masks work, so it is easier for agencies like the CDC to just ask everyone to wear one "when indoors" or whatever instead of trying to go into some kind of science class for 350 million American citizens. Of course people are going to freak out and go to extremes like wearing masks alone in cars or walking around by themselves, but that doesn't change the basic fact that in the right contexts, masks CAN and DO act as one small tool to help mitigate the spread of droplet-borne diseases. Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by acting like masks just simply don't work at all just because you're annoyed by people misusing them.

I too have been talking/thinking/reading/watching all things covid-related practically nonstop since the beginning of the pandemic. Mostly because I'm interested and want to know all that I can, and partly also because I'm a healthcare professional and I feel it's my duty to know the most accurate answers available to the questions we have. First of all, I think it's a bad idea to discount any source entirely, especially ones like the CDC and WHO because believe it or not, the more popular the source is then the more people pay attention to it meaning the more people scrutinize it. It's much harder for an organization like the CDC to get away with flat out lying about information than some small Youtube channel or website because literally millions and millions of people are following it, many of which are experts in the field, and scrutinizing everything they put out. Small sources tend to have small audiences, most of whom are people who sought out those sources because they already tend to believe some preconceived narrative, so it's much easier to make up whatever you want and not be questioned. This is not to say all small, independent sources can't be trusted or that some info isn't selectively published by mainstream sources to follow a narrative, or reported in a way to serve a purpose, but the CDC could not just make up whatever they want without people calling their bluff because they're so squarely in the spotlight constantly. As for subjects like masks, they were always being proposed as one tool of many to help curve the numbers, not some magic bullet that would end the pandemic if everyone just put them on. Just because people ACT like they're some magical cure all and misuse them constantly doesn't mean that's what any real agency is recommending. Keep in mind too that this whole pandemic has been a constant influx of information, and as we've gained new information we've had to alter our behavior and recommendations accordingly. People don't seem to grasp this. No one alive on this planet but a handful of centurians were even around during the last pandemic so this is a real life, real time science experiment we're experiencing on a global level. Info is going to change, it's just how it works when you're learning about something new. It doesn't mean people are just making it up. A lot of data can be validated by cross referencing to various other sources. This can be time consuming and annoying, but worth it if you're concerned about having an accurate opinion. Look at hospitalization and severity of the unvaxxed versus the vaxxed, for example. You can look numbers up on mainstream news sources. Don't trust them? Then go to individual hospital websites nationwide that are reporting those kinds of numbers and see how that aligns with the mainstream narrative. Still don't trust them? Then go to people working in those settings directly (if you aren't working there yourself) and see how their experiences align with reported hospital numbers and mainstream reports. I work in 3 different city hospitals in my area and am frequently in their ICUs talking with their doctors and other nurses and looking through charts. I know from first hand experience that hospitalized covid patients in my area are definitely predominately unvaxxed, and by far nearly all the most critical ones (on ECMO and ventilators in the ICU) are unvaxxed. This aligns with the "offical" or "mainstream" reports, which also aligns with individual hospital reports nationwide, which combined gives high credibility to the narrative that hospitalized patients, especially the most critical ones, are predominantly unvaxxed. While a "spin" of a story or selective reporting of data is common in media and mainstream reports, it's extremely rare to see data literally made up out of thin air. As for dangers of the vaccine, absolutely no one I've ever heard has denied that there have been negative reactions to it. Some of which have been quite significant. But as with ANY drug or vaccine that we've ever had, we are weighing benefits against risks. I've helped treat hundreds of covid patients, many on their death bed, but I've yet to see one single patient admitted for complications from the vaccine. This certainly doesn't mean that it's not happening, just that it's substantially more rare to be hospitalized over a reaction to the vaccine than to get seriously sick from covid. The data from multiple sources and personal experience shows over and over and over again that the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risks. It's kind of like having airbags and wearing a seatbelt in your car. Sure, many people die in car wrecks despite these safety features, but we still all have them in our vehicles because they significantly increase the chances of a positive outcome in the event of an accident. Dismissing something because there's a small chance of a negative outcome despite evidence of a significant increase of the chances of positive outcomes is just bad risk assessment. All this to say no, there is no singular source of information that will never be biased and tell the whole story from every possible angle. Instead, it's up to us to dig around, look at a story or a topic from multiple angles, and put the pieces together. It's a pain in the ***, but worth it.

I say screw it. Let specific clinics and hospitals cater to the anti-vaxx, pseudo-science crowd and let's study it. Let them open Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine clinics, where none of the staff are vaxxed and the docs and can give any drug they feel like regardless of any studies or evidence. We're already in an "us vs them" situation so let's just go with it. Have unvaxxed hospitals where none of the staff are vaxxed and only unvaxxed patients are allowed to go. Let's see what happens.

If she's actually trying to get rid of you, it sounds like she would take this opportunity and not try to bad talk you knowing this could be her chance to get rid of you.

I agree with you, but I think to many people it is more than just a scientific question and more of a philosophical question. The idea of "forcing" anyone to take an injection seems unacceptable, and frankly I would agree with that purely on a philosophical level. I would never support a government mandating vaccines simply based on the philosophical principle that there has to be a line drawn where I have control over my body when it won't definitively affect anyone else, just hypothetically. It's a tricky line to draw. On the other hand, I fully believe any private entity can require practically whatever they want for employment. I've heard of hospitals in my area that test for nicotine and won't hire you if you have it in your system. Following that line of thinking, unless you just can't understand or accept the science (in which case nursing probably isn't the field for you), patients and families should have the right to know your vaccination status if they want because it does potentially affect them directly. The kind of nurse that doesn't want anyone to know their vax status probably wouldn't mind hiding if they had a scratchy throat or congestion or fever either.

Curious question for you and whoever might have a good idea about this. I'm vaccinated and I support them, but with so many vaccinated currently contracting covid (I actually just got my positive PCR results today unfortunately), is there not a higher chance of the vaccine-resistant strain coming from people like me (the vaccinated who are infected) rather than the non-vaccinated who are infected? I would think that a strain that mutates in a vaccinated carrier and is passed on would likely be more resilient to the vaccine's defenses, no? I definitely don't claim expertise in virology, but this seems to make sense to my relatively basic understanding of it. It's the same principle as how antibiotic resistant organisms develop, and why we try to give antibiotics judiciously.

Um......which one of those examples is transmitted via droplets when in close proximity to someone? My sexual preference does not affect my patients well being. Nothing you do with your patients should come anywhere near risking transmitting herpes, if you happen to be carrying that virus. Unless I appear inebriated and it's affecting my patient care, my drinking habits have nothing to do with my patient. My GPA has nothing to do with my patient, nor does my NCLEX score. Unless I'm showing bias based on my patient's religion, my personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with my patient. Same with my political stances. Covid, on the other hand, can easily be transmitted via droplets when in close proximity of another person, and even more so true if they're health is already compromised, and the vaccine has been repeatedly shown to significantly reduce this risk (though not eliminate it).......none of your comparisons make any sense at all in the context of the conversation. Can you really not see how silly and nonsensical your post is?

no, but it can be an increased risk for a patient. one that could be easily avoided.

Our ER had an "extra plus sized" patient come in for some reason that is beside the point of the story, but the patient had a particularly bad odor. Needless to say, the ER did not get around to cleaning up the patient and sent them on to the ICU, where the nurse got her posse rounded up to go bathe them. Long story short, in the process of cleaning up underneath their panniculus they found a dead and decomposing kitten, who presumably had suffered a fatal cuddle session with the patient. Another one of my favorite stories most people find rather gross is the one and only time I ever saw a surgeon order leach therapy for a patient with a poorly healing rectal skin graft after an extensive surgery for rectal cancer. We had orders to go in every 2 hours and dispose of the old leaches, then fish a few new leaches out of a jar in a mini fridge that we left in the room, and then try to get them to reattach to the skin graft. The process sounds simple enough, but leaches are not very cooperative colleagues, and it was often a very time consuming task to 1) fish them out of the jar, then 2) get them to latch onto the graft. To top it off, if you did not get back in the room in a timely manner, they would fill up with blood then drop off the patient into the bed, and occasionally they would manage to escape the bed and you would have to follow the trail of blood and slime around the room to track them down. Fortunately, the patient had experience fishing with leaches and was quite a good sport about it.

I hope the OP isn't a nurse, because it makes me sad to know that a nurse is out there practicing who either a) doesn't remember some biology basics, b) is too lazy to research and refresh said biology basics, or c) doesn't believe the science behind those biology basics, in which case nursing is probably not the field for you because "evidence based practice" is based precisely on this kind of science. To top it off, they're probably out there spreading this misinformation to people who respect them because they're "a healthcare professional". You really don't know if the mRNA will affect the DNA or not? come on now.

We had a big drop in numbers around the end of January/beginning of February and then a small rise around the beginning of March and ever since things have been at a kind of equilibrium, fluctuating slightly up and down but no significant changes. Most staff are vaccinated and often giving reports and hanging around breakrooms with no masks. Covid rooms feel like any other isolation room now, some people not even gowning up for them. One hospital I float through (I work in 3) even has some covid patients mixed with non-covid. I'm even seeing staff (doctors and nurses alike) going in covid rooms with just a surgical mask on occasionally. Definitely feels like a new norm at this point.

In general, I don't think most people think of climate change as being directly connected to the nursing job itself. Sure, individual nurses might be concerned about it, but I've never heard a question like this before, nor have I ever really thought about it. First thought that came to mind though was the extreme amount of waste that the hospital generates. Some is out of necessity for cleanliness and sterility and what not, but a huge percentage is just mindless printouts and paperwork that could easily be done away with. My PICC team yesterday had a meeting yesterday in which we discussed how to cut down on paperwork. This was primarily to reduce the work of keeping up with excessive paperwork, and nothing to do with environmental concerns directly, but I appreciated that it would reduce our waste production as well. So this is a long way of saying that nurses can affect the negative environmental impact of our job (I don't like using "climate change" or "global warming" because they trigger certain people, haha) by finding ways to reduce unnecessary waste in the hospital......specifically paperwork. If your department has a task requisition printed out everytime an order is put in (that is just immediately tossed in the shredder) when you could just as easily look at the screen, then find a way to do away with the printout.

You do realize your two points literally conflict each other, right? Don't cause any drama.......but be more disagreeable?

Sounds to me like there's a lot more nuance to the story than the OP is sharing. Just randomly offering a ride? Waiting 2 days for a response? Now there's a weird dynamic with everyone at work created because of it? Just doesn't add up.

I have worked primarily in critical care over the last few years, but I'm currently in a float pool and work throughout two different hospitals (as well as PICC team) and have also travel nursed through a few different hospitals and I can say that while some degree of stress and time management issues are to be experienced not matter where you go, some units are DEFINITELY worse than others. This is multifactorial, and can have to do not only with nurse/patient ratios but also management and work environment and coworkers. 6-7 patients is just annoying and difficult to handle even if they're all good patients, but having an attentive manager who you like and supportive staff who work well together makes a huge difference also. All that is to say that if I were you, I would definitely look elsewhere before assuming all med/surg units are like that. Consider lower acuity like rehab or something, or maybe even higher acuity so you have a more manageable workload. As others mentioned also, maybe bedside/hospital nursing isn't a good fit for you and you should consider family clinics and the like. To start though, just start looking at moving to different units and see how it goes.