RN Jobs That Do Not Require Covid Vaccine

Tomascz, ASN, RN · Oct 25, 2021

I think we're on a big a*s learning curve in an environment where there are as many opinions as there are cell phones and laptops and a very small percentage of those think critically or are particularly educated about the ins and outs of Math, Science, Medicine or any related field, although plenty of them think they are. I include myself among them since I have a hell of a time keeping up (been reading a lot of good stuff though). I tend to think that there are a lot more than two sides to this argument. The battle lines are amorphous, to say the least; kind of like this virus.
Here's some food for thought out of Yale no less:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/fully-vaccinated-coronavirus/2021/10/21/d0f9a2d4-321b-11ec-93e2-dba2c2c11851_story.html

allnurses Guide · Oct 25, 2021

16 hours ago, chare said:

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

The powers that be are trying to make restraints illegal here in the US.

chare · Oct 25, 2021

47 minutes ago, hppygr8ful said:

17 hours ago, chare said:

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

The powers that be are trying to make restraints illegal here in the US.

I know that some organizations have previously made the decision to go restraint free. Most of these organizations provide adequate staffing so that these patients can be properly monitored. I think that this is doable, as long as they are able to maintain safe staffing levels.

As one of my facility's restraint champions I am interested in what is done elsewhere, particularly where restraints aren't used.

londonflo · Oct 25, 2021

6 hours ago, Tomascz said:

I tend to think that there are a lot more than two sides to this argument. The battle lines are amorphous, to say the least; kind of like this virus.

Just keep trying to create a blurry lens of doubt on the argument. There are not EVEN 2 sides to the argument. Somehow I bet you loved this statement in the article

Quote

Much of the focus on the fact that Powell died despite being vaccinated is surely opportunistic, intended to raise doubts about the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccines (and, thereby, the medical, public health and scientific establishments)

and here's you

Quote

But beyond pandering to far-right audiences and conspiracy theorists, the reports on Powell’s vaccination status play into genuine concerns about “breakthrough infections” in high-risk people.

The vast majority of adults are not in the high-risk group. Otherwise they would not be high risk....it would be normal risk.

Here is another idiotic statement from the author.

Quote

(Individual narratives can be more compelling than 99 percent of statistics, according to my mechanic.)

This is why Reader's Digest articles and other Publications sell with titles such as " I was a part-time hooker during the day and PTA board member at night" .

macawake, MSN · Oct 25, 2021

On 10/24/2021 at 8:26 PM, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Every source they post was clearly cherry picked with confirmation bias.

Hardy har har… Unlike OP who’s only tossed out numbers with nothing to back them up, at least ”our side” actually posts sources to back up our claims. In this thread it’s been links to The Lancet and BMJ. (And imdb, but that was for a TV series, so quite relevant). So yes, we ”cherry pick” from reputable medical journals.

On 10/24/2021 at 8:26 PM, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Anything against the narrative is summarily dismissed as "misinfo”.

There isn’t a ”narrative”. There is science and then there is unverified and unsupported miscellaneous crap. When you post ”miscellaneous unverified and unsupported crap”, you will get called out on it. (I admit to being a bit of an *** here, but was the entire word misinformation really too hard to type?)

On 10/24/2021 at 8:26 PM, 10GaugeNeedles said:

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

This qualifies as one of the most idiotic things I’ve read here, and the competition is pretty stiff. Your analysis that nurses who promote public health and who support evidence-based medicine, threaten rude patients with restraints has no basis in reality. You probably don’t know a single one of us in person, and your unproven anecdotes don’t carry any weight. Even if your anecdote happened to be true, your n=small number can’t be generalized. You are either just trying to provoke posters with this ridiculous claim, or you possess the debating skills of a pile of rocks. Asinine comment.

Tomascz, ASN, RN · Oct 25, 2021

2 hours ago, londonflo said:

Just keep trying to create a blurry lens of doubt on the argument. There are not EVEN 2 sides to the argument. Somehow I bet you loved this statement in the article

and here's you

The vast majority of adults are not in the high-risk group. Otherwise they would not be high risk....it would be normal risk.

Here is another idiotic statement from the author.

This is why Reader's Digest articles and other Publications sell with titles such as " I was a part-time hooker during the day and PTA board member at night" .

I don't know Flo. Either it's your attitude or my lack of time, but none of what you "quoted" as support for your "argument" was actually authored by me (except "I tend to think that there are a lot more than two sides to this argument. The battle lines are amorphous, to say the least; kind of like this virus"; clearly unforgivable .) In any case, there's a real need to put what we're learning from this pandemic in real time to work for medicine and the human race, but spitting on each other, IMO, is not the best way to get there. Enjoy your retirement.

10GaugeNeedles, BSN · Oct 25, 2021

38 minutes ago, macawake said:

Hardy har har… Unlike OP who’s only tossed out numbers with nothing to back them up, at least ”our side” actually posts sources to back up our claims. In this thread it’s been links to The Lancet and BMJ. (And imdb, but that was for a TV series, so quite relevant). So yes, we ”cherry pick” from reputable medical journals.

There isn’t a ”narrative”. There is science and then there is unverified and unsupported miscellaneous crap. When you post ”miscellaneous unverified and unsupported crap”, you will get called out on it. (I admit to being a bit of an *** here, but was the entire word misinformation really too hard to type?)

This qualifies as one of the most idiotic things I’ve read here, and the competition is pretty stiff. Your analysis that nurses who promote public health and who support evidence-based medicine, threaten rude patients with restraints has no basis in reality. You probably don’t know a single one of us in person, and your unproven anecdotes don’t carry any weight. Even if your anecdote happened to be true, your n=small number can’t be generalized. You are either just trying to provoke posters with this ridiculous claim, or you possess the debating skills of a pile of rocks. Asinine comment.

Thanks for demonstrating what I complain about. I don't even need to try anymore. LOL. Link's to the Lancet eh? You mean that same journal that had to retract the plaquenil study due to finding out the data came from an unknown data mining operation with zero credibility leading to shutting down that large study prematurely?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

Cause anything in a respected, peer reviewed journal can be trusted right? "Trust the science" is the last thing anyone should ever do. If science requires trust, how is that different from a religion that requires faith? Science is valid because it can consistently demonstrate it's claims with full transparency. I have never trusted science. No one should. That's exactly opposite of what we should do. Science that cannot be questioned, tested, verified, and possibly falsified should be immediately dismissed.

In the case of covid, if the science says the vaccine stops transmission, we expect to see an obvious negative correlation with vaccine rates and cases. If not, the science is wrong. If the science says a vaccine only decreases the symptoms, yet calls it a vaccine when "prophylactic" would be a more accurate term for that treatment, the science is wrong. If the science says the vaccine stops serious symptoms, we should see an obvious, consistent negative correlation between hospitalization and vaccine rates. If we don't, the science is wrong. If the science says "vaccine safe", and we hear a ton of reports outside of official sources of people claiming vaccine injury, the science MAY be wrong and we shouldn't dismiss the claims of vaccine injury simply because we've decided to trust the science. "Trust the science" is BS and I hope you knew that already.

GrumpyRN, NP · Oct 25, 2021

22 hours ago, chare said:

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

It is a very grey area unfortunately.

Physical restraint of a patient ie tying them up or to something, is definitely leaving yourself open to a charge of assault. Holding a patient down until they can be sedated (or arrested) is fine.

From an abstract of an article in "British Journal of Mental Health Nursing" The Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 is due to come into force, with the aim of increasing the management and oversight of the use of force in mental health hospitals. It does not, however, provide any powers for staff to lawfully restrain patients. Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall

I have once, many years ago, tied a patients hands to the cot sides to prevent him pulling at tubing etc. and did this only under direct consultant supervision and permission. I have many time working in ED wrestled a patient to the ground and sat on them until sedation or security/police arrived.

GrumpyRN, NP · Oct 25, 2021

24 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Thanks for demonstrating what I complain about. I don't even need to try anymore. LOL. Link's to the Lancet eh? You mean that same journal that had to retract the plaquenil study due to finding out the data came from an unknown data mining operation with zero credibility leading to shutting down that large study prematurely?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

Cause anything in a respected, peer reviewed journal can be trusted right?

Seriously????

You do understand (actually you don't seem to but let me try) that the study was being run by an American group?

From the article you referenced the Lancet behaved correctly and pulled the research piece after doubts were cast about and by the AMERICAN researchers.

Also that article is more than a year old when everyone was struggling with Covid research. Try looking for recent research on vaccination.

10GaugeNeedles, BSN · Oct 25, 2021

6 minutes ago, GrumpyRN said:

Seriously????

You do understand (actually you don't seem to but let me try) that the study was being run by an American group?

From the article you referenced the Lancet behaved correctly and pulled the research piece after doubts were cast about and by the AMERICAN researchers.

Also that article is more than a year old when everyone was struggling with Covid research. Try looking for recent research on vaccination.

Yeah. Seriously. What in the world difference does it make which country was running the study? Fact is, the faulty article caused the study to shut down. My point was addressing this "trust the science" crap so many people are pushing these days. The cited incident is one very public example of where trusting "the science" had serious negative consequences. Yes the Lancet pulled the article. Good for them. The researchers running the plaquenil study trusted "the science" and ended that study. "The science"was wrong. It would have been nice to have large study of plaquenil to have some early answers about potential therapies don't you think? That is the point I was making.

Exactly when do lessons learned no longer matter? When do those lessons expire?

Apparently, according to you, anything a year old or older is no longer valid? We were being told to trust the science from the beginning of this pandemic (in case you missed the last 2 years worth of news and government health official's press releases). No. We should not trust anyone.

If the science says x=L, and we see evidence that x=I, we are still being told to trust that, still, x=L.

If the vaccines are effective, why is Israel on their 4th booster shot? Why are we surprised that a vaccine that produces spike protein from the initial virus is less effective against a variant, yet people are broadly being told to get vaccinated (against the original virus) or get fired? Why are we being told to get vaccinated or else you'll definitely spread the virus when the viral load is the same for vaxxed and unvaxxed (I've seen a wide range of statements about transmission mitigation, but in any case, we are far from a consensus that the vaccine halts transmission)? Why MUST we get vaccinated regardless if we've been infected or not (the only argument I've heard on this is vaccine offers greater antibody production ie "protection")? If I have immunity from the virus, who cares if I got it from a vaccine or infection? Immunity is immunity! Why is a vaccine equally necessary for all people regardless of demographic risk, especially since the main selling point for the vaccine is a decrease in symptoms, RATHER than transmission mitigation? Not all people have the same risk of serious symptoms yet we are mandated equally to get the vaccine. WHY? I could go on.

You all can keep pushing the "trust the science" crap for another 5 years. This narrative will not change the fact that many many discontinuities exist from the official position. We know about the discontinuities and they are being ignored by official sources while we are being told not to talk about it. We WILL keep talking about it.

toomuchbaloney · Oct 25, 2021

25 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

If the science says x=L, and we see evidence that x=I, we are still being told to trust that, still, x=L.

Can you provide an example of that, please?

32 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Why are we being told to get vaccinated or else you'll definitely spread the virus when the viral load is the same for vaxxed and unvaxxed (I've seen a wide range of statements about transmission mitigation, but in any case, we are far from a consensus that the vaccine halts transmission)?

The viral load is not the same comparing vaccinated and infected to unvaccinated and infected. No person contended that vaccination halted the possibility of transmission, that's a misrepresentation of facts.

36 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Why is a vaccine equally necessary for all people regardless of demographic risk, especially since the main selling point for the vaccine is a decrease in symptoms, RATHER than transmission mitigation? Not all people have the same risk of serious symptoms yet we are mandated equally to get the vaccine. WHY? I could go on

You are questioning the concept of vaccine mediated herd immunity. Here's a nice discussion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433118/

50 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

You all can keep pushing the "trust the science" crap for another 5 years. This narrative will not change the fact that many many discontinuities exist from the official position. We know about the discontinuities and they are being ignored by official sources while we are being told not to talk about it. We WILL keep talking about It.

What, specifically, are you referencing?

10GaugeNeedles, BSN · Oct 25, 2021

21 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Can you provide an example of that, please?

The viral load is not the same comparing vaccinated and infected to unvaccinated and infected. No person contended that vaccination halted the possibility of transmission, that's a misrepresentation of facts.

-actually there is data to suggest you are wrong about viral load: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v2.full-text

-I know nobody suggested transmission halt. That was actually the point I was making in my comment. The claim is, however, everyone needs to get vaccinated to stop the spread and keep others safe. This claim obviously suggests limiting spread (to claim that's not what it means is disingenuous). As you quoted, my actual question was "why is a vaccine necessary for all people regardless of demographic risk?" It's not beneficial to stop transmission in a meaningful way, it doesn't stop you from getting infected. All it does is decrease symptoms. Some people have low risk. Why are low risk individuals mandated to get vacinated or get fired when they have a low risk of serious symptoms?

21 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Why is a vaccine equally necessary for all people regardless of demographic risk

What, specifically, are you referencing?

-see above. Not all people have the same risk of severe symptoms. Many many people have already been infected. Why are these groups required to get vaccinated just like high risk individuals if the purported benefit is a decrease in symptoms?