RN Jobs That Do Not Require Covid Vaccine

[TraumaRN52]

Frontliner, 11 year veteran RN, in the Emergency Department. For the last year and a half, I have been exposed to so much Covid I feel I'm so blessed. I have had it splash in my face, eyes and mouth. I have taken antibody test and just can't seem to test pos for any antibodies ... which rules me out for an asymptomatic "Super Spreader!" If my employer mandates the Covid Vaccine I will be looking for RN jobs that do not require the vaccine. I'm employed in North Carolina but willing to travel for Jobs that do not require the Vaccine. It's my body and my choice. This thread is for links and discussion of RN jobs that do not require the Covid vaccine. Stay safe all! You could die tomorrow from a drunk driver. So don't fear death, I do not, and you should not either. Fear what happens after death. 

[chare]

17 minutes ago, GrumpyRN said:

2 hours ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

They are the kind of nurses that threaten pts with restraints if the pt is rude.

Yeah, but what about us Europeans? Restraints aint legal here.

Restraints aren't legal?  Or they are rarely used?

[nursel56]

4 hours ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Florida is restricted by state law from mandates, plus they are compact state. I'm down here till all this BS blows over (if that ever happens). Stay strong. So many nurses on this site have lost their ability to critically think. Anything against the narrative is summarily dismissed as "misinfo". Every source they post was clearly cherry picked with confirmation bias. They are the kind of nurses that threaten pts with restraints if the pt is rude. Peace. You aren't alone.

How do you define "the narrative"?  Who is perpetuating the narrative?  Once we narrow that down we can talk about cherry-picking and confirmation bias. 

The comment connecting a nurse's attitude toward vaccination to nurses who threaten to restrain rude patients was an unnecessary injection of hostility toward those who don't agree with you.  It looks to me like some type of confirmation bias.

[LindaGracie, ADN, BSN]

I know that Bayada doesn't have the vaccine mandate for everyone to be vaccinated. (www.bayada.com) You may want to check with some other home health care and hospice agencies in your area. I just started working at a small home health care agency and not everyone there is vaccinated. They didn't even ask me about my vaccination status. Bayada encourages the vaccine and did pay an incentive. Don't know about the new company but they do promote handwashing and wearing the masks when in patients' homes.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

4 hours ago, nursel56 said:

How do you define "the narrative"?  Who is perpetuating the narrative?  Once we narrow that down we can talk about cherry-picking and confirmation bias. 

The comment connecting a nurse's attitude toward vaccination to nurses who threaten to restrain rude patients was an unnecessary injection of hostility toward those who don't agree with you.  It looks to me like some type of confirmation bias.

If you don't even know what the common narrative is in the current political environment, why are you commenting? I can't update you on the obvious over the last 2 years. You will have to educate yourself unfortunately. 

My comment was referencing a hostile and dismissive attitude I've commonly  seen throughout my career. The people that can't even entertain colleagues having the right to an opinion suggests a similar attitude I've seen in the past. And the threat of restraint is something I've seen in person. It happens. 

You don't understand what "confirmation bias" means. I suggest you review some literature on the concept before commenting on something you apparently don't understand.

[heron, ASN, RN]

5 hours ago, nursel56 said:

How do you define "the narrative"?  Who is perpetuating the narrative?  Once we narrow that down we can talk about cherry-picking and confirmation bias. 

The comment connecting a nurse's attitude toward vaccination to nurses who threaten to restrain rude patients was an unnecessary injection of hostility toward those who don't agree with you.  It looks to me like some type of confirmation bias.

 

24 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

If you don't even know what the common narrative is in the current political environment, why are you commenting? I can't update you on the obvious over the last 2 years. You will have to educate yourself unfortunately. 

My comment was referencing a hostile and dismissive attitude I've commonly  seen throughout my career. The people that can't even entertain colleagues having the right to an opinion suggests a similar attitude I've seen in the past. And the threat of restraint is something I've seen in person. It happens. 

You don't understand what "confirmation bias" means. I suggest you review some literature on the concept before commenting on something you apparently don't understand.

This same victim card gets pulled whenever a poster is challenged to get specific about their vague pejorative characterization of anyone who attempts to pin them down. 

”if you don’t already know, I, with my superior intellect, am not going to tell you” is not a persuasive answer. It’s just a way of dodging responsibility.

you do have a right to your opinion. You don’t have a right to avoid having that opinion challenged.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

29 minutes ago, heron said:

 

This same victim card gets pulled whenever a poster is challenged to get specific about their vague pejorative characterization of anyone who attempts to pin them down. 

”if you don’t already know, I, with my superior intellect, am not going to tell you” is not a persuasive answer. It’s just a way of dodging responsibility.

you do have a right to your opinion. You don’t have a right to avoid having that opinion challenged.

Yes I do have a right to my opinion. Same as anyone else. But when someone asks me to explain the totality of a political narrative affecting literally the entire world right now, it sounds disingenuous to me for obvious reasons. If you can't understand this, I can't help you. 

[nursel56]

59 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

If you don't even know what the common narrative is in the current political environment, why are you commenting? I can't update you on the obvious over the last 2 years. You will have to educate yourself unfortunately. 

My comment was referencing a hostile and dismissive attitude I've commonly  seen throughout my career. The people that can't even entertain colleagues having the right to an opinion suggests a similar attitude I've seen in the past. And the threat of restraint is something I've seen in person. It happens. 

You don't understand what "confirmation bias" means. I suggest you review some literature on the concept before commenting on something you apparently don't understand.

I can't put it any more clearly than Heron did above.  I would just add that trying to insult someone's intelligence rather than come up with a coherent response is the action of a weak-minded person, not an intellectual powerhouse.

There are no common narratives in politics.  There is no common narrative regarding the multifaceted issue of the Covid pandemic.  Those sources you distrust don't always agree with each other, a fact that people like you often use as a cudgel against them. If you had replied with something real, I might have pointed that out. 

 

[heron, ASN, RN]

10 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Yes I do have a right to my opinion. Same as anyone else. But when someone asks me to explain the totality of a political narrative affecting literally the entire world right now, it sounds disingenuous to me for obvious reasons. If you can't understand this, I can't help you. 

In other words, you can’t explain your opinion, you just want no challenges to it.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

9 minutes ago, heron said:

In other words, you can’t explain your opinion, you just want no challenges to it.

You don't even realize what the post you quoted was about do you? I'm entitled to my opinion, but that's not what the quote was about. It was about someone claiming ignorance on a very very commonly known, public issue. I simply don't believe that person is entirely ignorant about it. 

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

17 minutes ago, nursel56 said:

I can't put it any more clearly than Heron did above.  I would just add that trying to insult someone's intelligence rather than come up with a coherent response is the action of a weak-minded person, not an intellectual powerhouse.

There are no common narratives in politics.  There is no common narrative regarding the multifaceted issue of the Covid pandemic.  Those sources you distrust don't always agree with each other, a fact that people like you often use as a cudgel against them. If you had replied with something real, I might have pointed that out. 

 

I disagree. There is clearly a common, 2 sided narrative. You may not read or watch the news I guess, but it's clearly there. The pro mandate side has decided in favor of one side of the narrative. The "hesitant" has decided in favor if the other. I'm not insulting your intelligence. I simply don't believe you are as ignorant as you claim to be. I think you know full well the narrative in the public sphere. 

As for sources and narratives, there are clearly two distinct sides to covid and politics. I may say something like "'they' don't respect the idea of natural immunity." The response is along the lines of "the vaccine is safe and effective! Where's your source!" I give my source or reference a news article. "That's not peer reviewed! That's from a source [I don't respect]!" I shoot back, they shoot back. On and on it goes.

Fact is, the truth is grey and in the middle. Those on side A of this debate are immobile and beyond reason. Those on side B, while perhaps misinformed to a degree, know more than what is on the CDC website because they look outside of the official sources. There are actually good sources outside the "officially sanctioned" sources btw. Side A thinks everything other than official sources is misinformation and thus dismisses everything else without even considering it. On and on and on.

Side A thinks all options outside of official talking points are invalid, period. Side B can't be persuaded because of side A's attitude and their own legitimate fears of what we do not know, what may be conveniently left out, ignored, or buried, and the obvious disparity between what we do already know (ie things like infection meditated immunity is at least as good protection as the vaccine) and what the official sources are claiming.

Israel reports massive covid case numbers after massive vaccination numbers. Why? "Add another booster and stop asking questions! they demand. (A booster that still targets the original viral spike protein in the setting of mutant strains btw)". Get vaccinated or get fired they say regardless of virus acquired immunity status. "Why?" Dr Fauci says we don't have good answers for why. The studies I read have a variety of answers from 'both just as good, vaccine wanes over 6 months to less than 50% while infection acquired immunity lasts AT LEAST a year, probably longer and it's quite robust, etc etc'.

All the above going on as a large public conversation. And yet, with all the conflicting information, all the questions, all the different arguments, side A continues to loudly proclaim "safe and effective! Safe and effective! Trust the science! Misinformation! Get vaxxed or get fired! Anything you say is misinformation!" Dismissal, denial, denigration. I've been told by someone on this very site that the pandemic is entirely my fault from someone in side A (which was hilarious to me).

Well as long as side A treats side B like they have nothing to contribute, that there's no discussion to be had, or that there simply is nothing one is allowed to be concerned about, this rift will harden the two sides and there will be no common ground.

In any case, that's the situation as I see it. Side B does have legitimate concerns and side A should stop being so dismissive and judgemental. Side B is also subject to bad sources in some cases. But they also are aware of VALID information that goes against the official sources, opening new questions side A dismisses out of hand simply because those sources aren't "official." You may take all the above and pretend I made it all up; that's usually what happens with side A. But whether you believe it or not, there ARE two clear opposing sides in this mess of politics and pandemics.

If you read this far, congratulations. ?

[nursel56]

7 hours ago, nursel56 said:

How do you define "the narrative"?  Who is perpetuating the narrative?  Once we narrow that down we can talk about cherry-picking and confirmation bias. 

The comment connecting a nurse's attitude toward vaccination to nurses who threaten to restrain rude patients was an unnecessary injection of hostility toward those who don't agree with you.  It looks to me like some type of confirmation bias.

 

55 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I disagree. There is clearly a common, 2 sided narrative. You may not read or watch the news I guess, but it's clearly there. The pro mandate side has decided in favor of one side of the narrative. The "hesitant" has decided in favor if the other. I'm not insulting your intelligence. I simply don't believe you are as ignorant as you claim to be. I think you know full well the narrative in the public sphere. 

As for sources and narratives, there are clearly two distinct sides to covid and politics. I may say something like "'they' don't respect the idea of natural immunity." The response is along the lines of "the vaccine is safe and effective! Where's your source!" I give my source or reference a news article. "That's not peer reviewed! That's from a source [I don't respect]!" I shoot back, they shoot back. On and on it goes.

Fact is, the truth is grey and in the middle. Those on side A of this debate are immobile and beyond reason. Those on side B, while perhaps misinformed to a degree, know more than what is on the CDC website because they look outside of the official sources. There are actually good sources outside the "officially sanctioned" sources btw. Side A thinks everything other than official sources is misinformation and thus dismisses everything else without even considering it. On and on and on.

Side A thinks all options outside of official talking points are invalid, period. Side B can't be persuaded because of side A's attitude and their own legitimate fears of what we do not know, what may be conveniently left out, ignored, or buried, and the obvious disparity between what we do already know (ie things like infection meditated immunity is at least as good protection as the vaccine) and what the official sources are claiming.

Israel reports massive covid case numbers after massive vaccination numbers. Why? "Add another booster and stop asking questions! they demand. (A booster that still targets the original viral spike protein in the setting of mutant strains btw)". Get vaccinated or get fired they say regardless of virus acquired immunity status. "Why?" Dr Fauci says we don't have good answers for why. The studies I read have a variety of answers from 'both just as good, vaccine wanes over 6 months to less than 50% while infection acquired immunity lasts AT LEAST a year, probably longer and it's quite robust, etc etc'.

All the above going on as a large public conversation. And yet, with all the conflicting information, all the questions, all the different arguments, side A continues to loudly proclaim "safe and effective! Safe and effective! Trust the science! Misinformation! Get vaxxed or get fired! Anything you say is misinformation!" Dismissal, denial, denigration. I've been told by someone on this very site that the pandemic is entirely my fault from someone in side A (which was hilarious to me).

Well as long as side A treats side B like they have nothing to contribute, that there's no discussion to be had, or that there simply is nothing one is allowed to be concerned about, this rift will harden the two sides and there will be no common ground.

In any case, that's the situation as I see it. Side B does have legitimate concerns and side A should stop being so dismissive and judgemental. Side B is also subject to bad sources in some cases. But they also are aware of VALID information that goes against the official sources, opening new questions side A dismisses out of hand simply because those sources aren't "official." You may take all the above and pretend I made it all up; that's usually what happens with side A. But whether you believe it or not, there ARE two clear opposing sides in this mess of politics and pandemics.

If you read this far, congratulations. ?

I appreciate this response.  I wasn't feigning ignorance at all.  I haven't been personally involved in the polarized battle you're describing, but I know you didn't make it up.  Part of my motivation was a recent conversation I had with a very right wing person who I happen to live with who is pro-vaccination but also believes that government exists only to take his freedoms away.  He's fine with mandates but just not for churches. 

I don't watch the news.  I read the news, and behind the news.  I expect official sources to revise their advice, given that this situation is still highly dynamic.  When all this started there were 21 articles about Covid on Google Scholar.  I know that because I checked.  Now there are over 2 million.  

 

 

 

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

2 minutes ago, nursel56 said:

 

I appreciate this response.  I wasn't feigning ignorance at all.  I haven't been personally involved in the polarized battle you're describing, but I know you didn't make it up.  Part of my motivation was a recent conversation I had with a very right wing person who I happen to live with who is pro-vaccination but also believes that government exists only to take his freedoms away.  He's fine with mandates but just not for churches. 

I don't watch the news.  I read the news, and behind the news.  I expect official sources to revise their advice, given that this situation is still highly dynamic.  When all this started there were 21 articles about Covid on Google Scholar.  I know that because I checked.  Now there are over 2 million.  

 

 

 

Thanks for your kind reply. Wow. I mean, the government already gives churches tax exempt status. What a weird position if your friend is against vax mandates for churches. If he thinks the vaccine should be mandatory for others but not for churches? Usually I hear right wingers more consistent than that. LOL.

I'm glad you were coming from a good faith position. I've seen so much bad faith on this site I've started assuming guilt until proved innocence. Those of us in the skeptic camp of the vaccine debate have a wide variety of reasons for not wanting the vaccine. For me:

Risk 1) There's a risk of heart inflammation from the mrna vaccine and a risk of hyper coagulability with Janson. Risk 2) It's designed to produce spike protein on my own cells which makes them a target for my immune system. Risk 3) I don't know how long the spike protein continues to be produced and I've heard it becomes widely distributed throughout the body. If long term we won't know for a long time. I'm not okay with unknown long term risk. Risk 4) the most common symptom specific to vaccine I've heard reported is loss of taste and smell suggesting to me crossing the blood brain barrier. I'm concerned about auto immune processes in my central nervous system. Risk 5) I've heard an absolute ton of anecdotal claims of very serious morbidity. If these complaints are routinely ignored (an absolute possibility in this political climate imo), how can we know the actual vaccine injury rate? It's concerning. If I happen to be a lucky one with a permanent vaccine injury, tough for me right? Or I can simply not risk it.

Benefits: I'm in a very very low risk cohort from the virus itself according to CDC data, thus the vaccine benefit of avoiding hospitalization should I get infected is very low regardless of vaccination status. I've seen multiple reports saying viral load is not decreased significantly in vaccine recipients this not much benefit for limiting spread. I've seen reports that vaccine efficacy decreases substantially leading to boosters being required, but for what benefit? Very little. I could go on. In any case, in my case, the risks greatly outweigh the benefits. This is what allot of us are doing. We are thinking critically about this and making an informed decision for ourselves. I just wish side A would recognize reasonable people can come to different conclusions. 

I do my best to inform side B when I recognize they are basing their reasons in obvious misinformation (such as the vaccine alters dna, micro bot injection, the vaccine is a plot to kill everyone, mark of the best stuff, etc). Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. I wish we could all critically think and as nurses, give each other the benefit of the doubt. I hope this whole thing calms down soon.