Valid Reasons To Not Get Vaccinated

[jive turkey]

Whether you're in support of the COVID vaccine, against it,  or on the fence please use this particular thread to cite credible, evidence-based sources to share with everyone so we can engage in a discussion that revolves around LEARNING.  

I'll start:

The primary concerns I've shared with others have to do with how effective the vaccine is for those who have already been infected.  I've reviewed studies and reports in that regard.  There are medical professionals I've listened to that, in my personal opinion,  don't offer a definitive answer. 

Here are some links to 2 different, I'll start with just 2:

Cleveland Clinic Statement on Previous COVID-19 Infection Research

Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021

[FutureNP90]

17 hours ago, jive turkey said:

I assure you, you're not being patronized.  You directed your vaccination message to me specifically even though I have not and don't intend to share my medical history.  That led me to believe you hadn't read what I've been saying. If you did,  my bad. 

Here's what I did say:

My personal position is that anyone who has never been infected or are high risk,  consult their provider to determine if the vaccine is appropriate for them. 

For those who have been infected and/or are high risk, same. 

I'm not on a crusade  to tell people they should or should not get it. 

In another post I reinforced that with: if someone who was previously infected,  consulted their physician, with consideration of their personal medical history,  was informed of the risks and benefits of the vaccine vs reinfection and determined the risk of the vaccine was greater than that of reinfection for them I would consider that a valid reason not to do it.

I shared multiple references regarding the rarity of reinfection.  

*Here is an article that explains why those who have been infected should still get the vaccine from the CDC: https://www.CDC.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

"Study authors concluded that "to reduce their likelihood for future infection, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccine, even those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection."

Researchers also noted that "the emergence of new variants might affect the duration of infection-acquired immunity."

"If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated," CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement. "This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country."" https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-08-06/CDC-covid-19-reinfections-among-unvaccinated-twice-as-likely-than-among-vaccinated

 

None of us has found our shared data that speaks to how many reinfected people are hospitalized or dying. 

*please read the article and CDC article I just posted above as well as below. It does mention that those who were previously infected with Covid are still twice as likely to be reinfected (if they have not been vaccinated). The severity of their disease was not studied.

My issue with your attitude about this are the repercussions of hospitals overflowing with covid patients. Why should that even be a thing? Why do patients that are suffering from other ailments be pushed to the back of the line when we could've avoided all of this by vaccinating people? Why are we "burning out" all of our medical staff? Nurses leaving the bedside? Why deal with the problem when we can do something to AVOID it completely?

Here's an article that mildly touches on severity of symptoms of reinfected patients, it is a very small sample (17 people). But it also seems like the study of symptoms after reinfection isn't being studied because at the end of it all those people are still transmitting the disease and have not made the immune response that would result in not being reinfected. https://jim.bmj.com/content/69/6/1253

I've taken a fairly neutral position about the vaccine however unlike most here, I'm willing to accept that allergies and contraindications aren't the only reason someone shouldn't take the vaccine.  

*Taking a neutral position on something this important in public health is almost like saying "White privilege doesn't exist because I don't experience it". Think about what you just wrote. You are a professional in your field and you are being blasé about peoples health. Yes this is directed at you, but its also a general statement to those who feel this way.

If you don't think what I said is a valid reason that's cool too! Difference of opinion.

I will always respect peoples opinions, even in controversial conversations. The concern that comes up when we are talking about vaccinations in particular is that we do have evidence, and facts, and statistics that have helped us come up with a plan that will help us get out of this pandemic. But instead, those who are anti-vaxxers or "neutral" decide that their beliefs are more important than the public, public health, and getting out of this pandemic that we all want to be over. Its not about a difference in opinion when your opinion has been debunked.

**my response to you is in italics above**

 

1 hour ago, jive turkey said:

Advice is suggesting a course of action.

Declaring a personal choice based on naccurate information, not necessarily.

I can appreciate where the author is coming from. The concern is the patient considers the MA as a trusted source for information and makes a choice based on it, creating a liability for the company.

See, heres the thing, WE are smart enough to look at information and decide whether or not this information is truthful and evidence based, and that is because we have the education that helps us made those type of inferences when we are reading material. Im sure you were taught how to do research and how to differentiate between published journals, opinion pieces, etc. Those who don't know will look to professionals to help them create a course of action for themselves (and lets be honest only 42% of Americans have a BA/BS and only 13.1% have a Masters). A medical assistant CAN make an imprint on certain people because those people don't know better, let alone that it fits their anti-vax narrative.

[FutureNP90]

32 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Just for fun though we can debate if it qualified as advice or not

If someone said , "Munro  I believe aliens are coming to Earth tonight,  I'm hiding in the basement"

Vs

"Munro aliens are coming to earth tonight you should hide in the basement"

One is advice, the other is someone sharing their thoughts and plans which you may take that to mean you should follow suit.... but they didn't exactly advise you what to do. 

semantics, especially when the end result is the same. Using fear, misinformation, and disinformation to get people to do what they want. Even if its not "what they want" but you forget that fear (fear of dying, fear of injury, fear of the unknown) is a powerful force.

[iNurs5, CNA]

Your feelings, damages to the vulnerable population or deaths aren't the same. Your feelings can heal up with time. 

I fear almost anything. It sounds oblivious to accept the vaccines, but it's unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy and without side effects.

I live with hope that I'll be awaken tomorrow.

[iNurs5, CNA]

That's why there are those wh push for more biochemistry in nursing major. 

How many biochemistry classes did you take?

[guest1163268]

Drop the Mike!! 

Is it Phil Valentine who just died from Covid complications? 

[guest1163268]

27 minutes ago, FutureNP90 said:

semantics, especially when the end result is the same. Using fear, misinformation, and disinformation to get people to do what they want. Even if its not "what they want" but you forget that fear (fear of dying, fear of injury, fear of the unknown) is a powerful force.

I prefer sarcasm and shame! It gives me great pleasure to encourage foolish people to be foolish! 

I will facilitate their prowess in every possible way. I'm not one of those shrinking Violet types of people! I subscribe to disruption! My entire goal is to keep stupid people away from me before they involve me in their stupidity! And I have found that the best way to achieve that, is to make it too uncomfortable for them to be around me! 

Hey, doesn't evolution also subscribe to disruption? Or, do you think that biology has a political correctness factor? 

Mr White Shark to the seal, "Would you mind awfully, if I were to bite you really hard and then eat you alive?" 

[iNurs5, CNA]

1 hour ago, jive turkey said:

We are in a forum of professionals.  Having a difference of opinion is not the same as breaking laws.

I've seen evidence of how this hostile approach to vaccination serves to make people MORE resistant.  I often worry people are so overcome by their fears they use the disease as an outlet to lash out at people.  

I'd like to understand how anyone thinks being unkind is going to encourage vaccination. 

I'll save their worrisome during the group therapy aftermath of this pandemic.

[MunoRN, RN]

19 hours ago, jive turkey said:

I assure you, you're not being patronized.  You directed your vaccination message to me specifically even though I have not and don't intend to share my medical history.  That led me to believe you hadn't read what I've been saying. If you did,  my bad. 

Here's what I did say:

My personal position is that anyone who has never been infected or are high risk,  consult their provider to determine if the vaccine is appropriate for them.  

For those who have been infected and/or are high risk, same. 

I'm not on a crusade  to tell people they should or should not get it. 

In another post I reinforced that with: if someone who was previously infected,  consulted their physician, with consideration of their personal medical history,  was informed of the risks and benefits of the vaccine vs reinfection and determined the risk of the vaccine was greater than that of reinfection for them I would consider that a valid reason not to do it.

I shared multiple references regarding the rarity of reinfection. 

None of us has found our shared data that speaks to how many reinfected people are hospitalized or dying. 

I've taken a fairly neutral position about the vaccine however unlike most here, I'm willing to accept that allergies and contraindications aren't the only reason someone shouldn't take the vaccine.  

If you don't think what I said is a valid reason that's cool too! Difference of opinion.

There is fairly overwhelming consensus on who should get vaccinated, everybody, it had been that those who had an anaphylactic reaction to the first dose should not get the second dose, until the evidence made it apparent that an anaphylactic reaction to the first dose did predict a higher risk of anaphylaxis to the second dose.  There certainly may be additional precautions to be taken, but that's why certain variables are screened for prior to vaccination.

The recommendation is not that people should consult their doctor to see if they should contract HIV or not, or whether they should drive drunk, like vaccination these aren't recommendations that vary by individiual.

The reason why vaccination is still recommended for those with a previous infection is that despite the risk of infection is lower, it's still higher that not being vaccinated, but primarily it's because someone who has natural immunity but not vaccinated has a higher transmission potential than someone is is vaccinated.

[MunoRN, RN]

1 hour ago, jive turkey said:

We both agree the MA made a poor choice putting the patient at risk for taking a course of action based on unfounded information. 

 

Just for fun though we can debate if it qualified as advice or not

If someone said , "Munro  I believe aliens are coming to Earth tonight,  I'm hiding in the basement"

Vs

"Munro aliens are coming to earth tonight you should hide in the basement"

One is advice, the other is someone sharing their thoughts and plans which you may take that to mean you should follow suit.... but they didn't exactly advise you what to do. 

No, I don't see those as being fundamentally different statements.

It's not quite an even comparison though since in your example the person is suggesting a course of action where there is no known course of action confirmed to be effective.

A more accurate example would be if someone said:

"Aliens are coming to earth tonight, they only kill people who don't hide"

VS

"Aliens are coming to earth tonight, they only kill people who don't hide, you should hide".

Both clearly advise to hide.

[jive turkey]

1 hour ago, FutureNP90 said:

**my response to you is in italics above**

 

 

I've read that article, we discussed it early in the thread.   

 

  That study consists of less than 300 participants to make a claim about having a greater reinfection rate. 

 I shared a study where out of 50,000 participants none were reinfected.  

I shared a CDC study consisting of 15,000 participants over 1yr period. 1% reinfected. 

 I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me how many reinfected people are getting hospitalized or dying. Nobody has successfully done that that period

I see people cherry picking studies to support their position

 Help me understand why these types of studies get thrown to the wind but but you will cite a study that covered significantly fewer people.

 

45 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

I prefer sarcasm and shame! It gives me great pleasure to encourage foolish people to be foolish! 

I will facilitate their prowess in every possible way. I'm not one of those shrinking Violet types of people! I subscribe to disruption! My entire goal is to keep stupid people away from me before they involve me in their stupidity! And I have found that the best way to achieve that, is to make it too uncomfortable for them to be around me! 

Hey, doesn't evolution also subscribe to disruption? Or, do you think that biology has a political correctness factor? 

Mr White Shark to the seal, "Would you mind awfully, if I were to bite you really hard and then eat you alive?" 

???

[jive turkey]

1 hour ago, FutureNP90 said:

**my response to you is in italics above**

 

See, heres the thing, WE are smart enough to look at information and decide whether or not this information is truthful and evidence based, 

 1st of all it's not fair to assume that just because somebody is a patient they're not smart enough to do the same thing. Secondly I already said that I agreed it was a bad idea for her to make that comment because it RISKS them believing it and making a choice based on inaccurate information. 

  Let's drop this one we have a more interesting debate going. This 1 wasn't that serious?

[jive turkey]

1 hour ago, Honyebee said:

That's why there are those wh push for more biochemistry in nursing major. 

How many biochemistry classes did you take?

I doubt you have an interest in my college curriculum. People often try to discredit and disqualify someone's perspective by challenging their academic background.  If you're trying to do that we can stop addressing one another.  I'm not interested in personal attacks.