Vaccination Mandating

Updated:   Published

nurses-how-do-you-feel-about-mandatory-vaccination.jpg.294320ed3f6c038a5851c2ebe17ee015.jpg

I'm in NY. Wonder how other NURSES are feeling about mandatory COVID vaccination?

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Medical emancipation of adolescents is a state level determination.  In Tennessee the conservative state political leadership got in the way of public health outreach to teens for ALL vaccination while trying to prevent uptake of the covid vaccine. It's crazy. 

The Tennessean

The result of their actions will the actual deaths of actual kids.  Some do it because they, themselves, are ignorant.  Some do it it purely out of political ambition and greed.

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, hherrn said:

The result of their actions will the actual deaths of actual kids.  Some do it because they, themselves, are ignorant.  Some do it it purely out of political ambition and greed.

 

Both of those reasons are dangerously prevalent in the USA right now. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.

We really are living out "Idiocracy". It's unbelievable.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×

I'm oddly surprised and a bit curious as to the ideas presented here. People are mentioning cases, inundations of hospitals, economic windfalls, etc. I haven't seen anyone challenge the efficacy of RT-PCR testing, nor the conflicts of interests (COIs) surrounding those tests, the COIs within the FDA and the funding they receive, or even the fact that we are testing asymptomatic people. The 2006 swineflu "pandemic" ended up being a "casedemic," ultimately due to the use of PCR testing. So, it's very difficult for me to support a governmental mandate, state or federal, to be placed on people when the analyses are faulty. I won't begin to mention the unconstitutionality of it. 

If we continue to tread down this path of collusion between the pharma, medical, and governmental bodies, we will not like the outcome. The shear censorship of researchers and medical professionals to be able to even state their opinions without being shut down, is VERY concerning. giving me "thought police" vibes. For a population of professionals that "follow the science," we seem to lean towards the "sciences" that suit our personal beliefs, leaving objectivity to the back burner, ultimately allowing very important voices to not only go unheard, but purposely silenced. 

5
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.
8 hours ago, hppygr8ful said:

California here: all healthcare workers And government employees are mandated to receive the vaccine

Interesting. On my brief trips to California, they seemed very profit-oriented. Not exactly in line with communism. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.
34 minutes ago, tawfiqaziz said:

I'm oddly surprised and a bit curious as to the ideas presented here. People are mentioning cases, inundations of hospitals, economic windfalls, etc. I haven't seen anyone challenge the efficacy of RT-PCR testing, nor the conflicts of interests (COIs) surrounding those tests, the COIs within the FDA and the funding they receive, or even the fact that we are testing asymptomatic people. The 2006 swineflu "pandemic" ended up being a "casedemic," ultimately due to the use of PCR testing. So, it's very difficult for me to support a governmental mandate, state or federal, to be placed on people when the analyses are faulty. I won't begin to mention the unconstitutionality of it. 

 

Welcome new poster.

We test all close contacts of positive cases 3-5 days post exposure, symptomatic or not. It has been well established that people can be positive and contagious prior to having symptoms. Are you suggesting only symptomatic patients be tested? Well, then, why test at all? Are you saying that people should not be tested prior to invasive procedures or hospital admission? 

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×

Sorry I haven’t had time to respond back and sometimes I feel like the conversation is going nowhere, so I usually just don’t waste time to debate back and forth. I said in a statement earlier that hopefully we can all discuss things back and forth with statistics, research and current thoughts, ideas and facts with the ability to agree to disagree and not take things personal. 
 

So no matter where you stand, we had a nursing shortage before the mandate and now we are going to have a bigger shortage since the mandate. I’m telling you that no matter what you think, nurses want to be well informed prior to putting something in their system and their is evidence on both sides for and against the vaccines.

Recently you can see huge nursing shortages post vaccine mandate in multiple cities across the United States to the point that ANA in a 9/8/21 article titled “Is the nursing shortage now a national crisis” shows we have lost enough nurses to burnout, retirement, etc. So we can’t loose more nursing staff to the mandate. American Hospital Association showed the last week of August 39% of hospitals mandated vaccines for their staff and their is a valid concern in the article that if their is a impact of 38% that leave the net impact will be compromised care for the patients and I figure a lot more safe harbor.

From an article on August 26,2021 it notes that Houston Methodist is struggling with 150 that were fired or quit. And that’s just one hospital.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, tawfiqaziz said:

I'm oddly surprised and a bit curious as to the ideas presented here. People are mentioning cases, inundations of hospitals, economic windfalls, etc. I haven't seen anyone challenge the efficacy of RT-PCR testing, nor the conflicts of interests (COIs) surrounding those tests, the COIs within the FDA and the funding they receive, or even the fact that we are testing asymptomatic people. The 2006 swineflu "pandemic" ended up being a "casedemic," ultimately due to the use of PCR testing. So, it's very difficult for me to support a governmental mandate, state or federal, to be placed on people when the analyses are faulty. I won't begin to mention the unconstitutionality of it. 

If we continue to tread down this path of collusion between the pharma, medical, and governmental bodies, we will not like the outcome. The shear censorship of researchers and medical professionals to be able to even state their opinions without being shut down, is VERY concerning. giving me "thought police" vibes. For a population of professionals that "follow the science," we seem to lean towards the "sciences" that suit our personal beliefs, leaving objectivity to the back burner, ultimately allowing very important voices to not only go unheard, but purposely silenced. 

Baloney. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
22 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

Welcome new poster.

We test all close contacts of positive cases 3-5 days post exposure, symptomatic or not. It has been well established that people can be positive and contagious prior to having symptoms. Are you suggesting only symptomatic patients be tested? Well, then, why test at all? Are you saying that people should not be tested prior to invasive procedures or hospital admission? 

 

Thanks for the welcome. 

What I am saying is documented positives from a test that was designed for manufacturing, and is now being displayed as "gold standard" despite plethora of data to suggest inaccuracies for its use as a diagnostic tool, is a grave disservice to the people we serve. 

We never diagnose a patient's illness without a multitude of angles with which to quantify that diagnosis. To hospitalize people that are asymptomatic and to quantify a pandemic solely from case numbers from these tests is irresponsible. And then to parade the data as though it is not at all debatable is negligent.

 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×

And that’s not to mention Nursing Homes and rural health centers - Multiple stories like this one in many states across the US

 

https://www.wibw.com/2021/08/26/staff-vaccine-mandate-could-lead-shortages-even-closure-some-kansas-nursing-homes/

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
5 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Baloney. 

We can't all be objective :)

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
15 minutes ago, pclaybrooke said:

 

So no matter where you stand, we had a nursing shortage before the mandate and now we are going to have a bigger shortage since the mandate.

The nurses remain in the employment market.  Their place of employment is what may change as it is unlikely that most can afford to remain unemployed for this reason.  Any vacancies will be filled by other nurses in the market who would like to change jobs, maybe a step up.  It will be expensive and stressful for the hospitals and dangerous for patients, and honestly, it's difficult for me to understand the cultural influences that are causing nurses to choose this way. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion