jive turkey

Allow me to clarify. The vaccines were available before full FDA approval. "We" referred to the general public, specifically those that supported the use of the vaccine before full FDA approval.

I hear you. I would never discount what you and other CCRNs witness. If not animosity on your part it definitely exists among us in regards to patients and their lifestyle choices. What you see is the reality of how dangerous this disease can be. That has to be recognized and responded to. There's no denying that. We are fortunate that the tragedies in the ICU aren't reflective of every patient and everyone in society. I imagine police and correctional officers experience similar frustrations being at the epicenter of crime and having frequent encounters with criminals. While what they see does not reflect society as a whole, we appreciate their efforts to end crime and increase awareness much as we do with those of us on the front lines in regards to protecting everyone from COVID. I think it was noble and respectable of you to catch what your were feeling and consider a diferent perspective. Many can't or don't.

What makes it "magical"? I didn't understand that part. It doesn't make sense that a physician would prescribe a medication they know conclusively to be ineffective and would therefore have to explain that it isn't, but prescribing it anyway. The challenge here seems to be what everyone will consider a valid source of information regarding effectiveness.

This is a valuable lesson for everyone bearing animosity towards patients. Thank you for sharing.

Hey if the train can travel the world without refueling, I suppose it can float across water too??

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04516746 Looks like it was double blind, but the vaccine was being given before completed. Now if there's more to it, anyone is free to share if a double blind study was completed for any of the COVID vaccines before administering them. The part that gets me is the same people who will argue for example, Ivermectin is not FDA approved for COVID are the same people that supported using the COVID vaccines before FDA approval. Why the double standard? The same people who say "I trust the experts" are the same ones dismissing experts (you know, providers) saying they've prescribed Ivermectin and seen results. If you disagree with MD RX Ivermectin as a tx for COVID, explain why without any double standards.

1. No that's not what I'm saying. 2. If it proves effective they'd have to explain why it was presented as ineffective, not recommended, and not researched earlier when physicians were reporting its effectiveness, like the young lady in the video I shared with you. When I say explain, I don't necessarily mean it's their fault. People would be curious how we developed a vaccine so quickly but overlooked a readily available form of treatment. I can appreciate the argument there aren't conclusive studies to support or deny its effectiveness. The challenge I see is too much effort to deny it rather than be receptive to whether or not it may work. The human dose that is not the feed store stuff.

The challenge and tragedy with this is it's not possible to live in the skin of a minor seeking this type of treatment and understand what they're going through. I can appreciate the fear of facilitating permanent change for someone still young, naive, and developing. I'm sympathetic to the minor who will ultimately still make the change once they become a legal adult but had to suffer for years waiting for their 18th birthday. Parental influence is a concern and must be considered.

That's horrible. And the fact the patient didn't wonder why she had to get out of all her clothes and wear a gown just for a shot....

Please share how the answers to these questions define what an Anti-Vaxxer is and justify why blanket mandates are necessary.

I'm flattered hhern, you've made a point to flatter me in every thread I go to. No need to change my screen name with this much attention right? So how about those "vaxxed AF" necklaces?

Here's an NP prescribing it, take a gander. Her comment at the end is quite sad

This may not be news to some of you. If a sticker and card weren't enough there's this: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/best-vaccinated-gear_l_6075ef17e4b02375ab44c692 The entrepreneurs that capitalized on this are laughing all the way to the bank. Good for them

Filter exhaled air minimally? It stops droplets in non valved n95s.

1. Exactly. So why act as if the unvaccinated person is to blame for everything other than the consequences of not tolerating the live infection without the vaccine? 2. Not according to the CDC. According to them Delta loads are similar in both. What's left is the report of vaccinated people having shorter shedding periods. That does speak to your point. It's not enough to put all the blame on unvaccinated people. I would not favor someone who may need the vaccine using these facts as reasons to defer either Considering the information is evolving and new information is emerging, I disagree with blanket mandates, treating the unvaccinated as solely responsible for the pandemic, and ostracizing them. It certainly doesn't encourage them to get the shot.

This is interesting. Share graphs that show other time frames during COVID's history. This one says its a 14 day moving average.

Thank you! People don't realize how dangerous a precedent they set when promoting the concept of using healthcare to discriminate and retaliate against people. If a murderer and pedophile can get medical care, so can an unvaccinated person. If you want THIS vaccine, took it and have protection, what harm comes to you from the unvaccinated person? Especially someone that's already had the virus?

The seatbelt example you gave, speaks against your point not in favor and smacks false equivalency. Your seatbelt protects YOU. It does nothing for anyone else. So how does your seatbelt example equate to mandating a person to take a vaccine on the premise it protects someone else? Quantify "far less likely to spread" and "reduce the likelihood". Factor in emerging reports that the viral load in the vaccinated is similar to the unvaccinated.

1. These vaccines, for this virus, were not developed 30 years ago. We can't fairly argue we have 30 years of evidence regarding how this vaccine will perform. We have 9 months. The airplane was developed over 100 years ago and yet still, a newer, modern Boeing 737 Max was crashing. 2.Previous vaccines you're using for comparison were not mRNA vaccines. Let's not use other vaccines to argue the effects of this one. They aren't the same. Someone could have made the same argument for Zantac noting all the other H2 blockers that have been used safely for years only to later discover there were long term side effects. It is reasonable to say there's more to learn and for that, objections to mandates are reasonable. 3. For clarification, when I say natural immunity I'm referring to the previously infected. I'll leave it to you to research statistics regarding reinfection rates along with hospitalizations and deaths thereafter. And yes, even for the naive the vast majority of people infected survive. Unfortunately ~2% of the population is a large number of people which makes the vaccine relevant. My argument has more to do with mandates. I get the sense you're countering as if I'm against the vaccine all together. I'm not.

"Patiently and with a smile" Another poster and I argued against mandating a vaccine as new as this one. People often cite the technology was developed 30 years ago failing to mention it was not this vaccine for this virus 30 years ago. Many of us disagree with being coerced in to participating in a demonstration as you described it. It has the opportunity to demonstrate the good it can do and it also has the opportunity to demonstrate what harm it can cause. Natural immunity can also demonstrate what great fruits it can bear too. Time will tell for all. Does that clear it up for you?

Is this story for real? You're mad he wouldn't get it but he went with you to the pharmacy to do it. Not his fault they were out and you guys only tried 1 pharmacy. Did he say to you he doesn't care about the health and safety of others or are you making assumptions? The biggest risk would be to his own rather than that of others. He can carry and spread it with our without the vaccine.

No disrespect if this is an authentic message. Something seems fishy about it. First post is this? But I'm sure there are real relationships being strained over the vaccine so I'll entertain it. The new standard for whether or not you can be with someone is whether or not they took a vaccine? If you're unable to respect or agree with how he manages his health the answer is self evident. You'd be better served with someone as passionate about it as you. It's a darn shame this is even a discussion.

Please expand on your rebuttal to the other poster reflecting on the lack of previously successful mRNA vaccines.

FDA approval and the process wasn't the point but thank you for clarifying for someone that may not have known that. ?

Interestingly, Pfizer is advertising their vaccine is safe for children 5 to 11 based on results that haven't been peer reviewed. With that being said it's fair to say information is worth considering and being aware of even if it is a preprint. It doesn't mean it's valid or invalid if the basis of validity is peer review.