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

[BostonFNP, APRN]

4 hours ago, jive turkey said:

I stated numerous times what I would consider a valid reason.  You and many others don't agree.  

I wasn't looking for an "answer" I was receptive to information and different perspectives.  

I'm left with the impression you and others are bothered because you disagree with me and aren't offering anything that'll change my perspective.  

We disagree and it's OK

This is a typical pseudoscientific issue: the only valid data is the data that supports your preconceived position. It is called confirmation bias and is a central fallacy of pseudoscience that suggests valid data is invalid because it doesn't meet the intended result. At the end of the day, only you know, deep down, if someone provided what you defined as "valid" if it would truly change your mind and you'd head right out to get vaccinated or not. 

When someone uses derogatory words to refer to you and questions your credentials those are personal attacks.  You've seen them,  and possibly overlooked them because they came from people you agree with. 

Questioning your credentials is not an "attack" per se but we all know that ad hominems are fairly common in internet debates. I try to abstain from them, personally.  

Yea, it's very clear I have an opinion and I told you what it was. I don't understand why you're stating the obvious. 

It is obvious that you have a predetermined conclusion; I state the obvious because this is not how healthcare providers should operate. It is pseudoscience and its encroachment into the medical professions is dangerous. 

Resist the desire to make this personal. 

In a world where just about everyone is talking about COVID vaccination from a public health lens you are (seemingly) responding with how statements effect you personally not the public at large. 

 

 

 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

Questioning someone's credentials here on AN is not an insult.  It just a fact because  they do not ask for proof of nursing licensure and we have no idea to whom we are speaking.  These forums are open to everyone.  I wish we had a nurses only section.  Nurseanesthesia.org used to operate like that.  Public forms and closed forums.

[MunoRN, RN]

22 hours ago, jive turkey said:

The good old "You're trolling " cop out.  Often used when someone realizes their arguments are weak.  

You never did answer my question, most don't. 

It's hard to argue why a study of less than 300 people has greater value than a study of 50k and15k 

It's hard to argue against the fact there's no data about how many previously infected people are hospitalized and dying. 

Thanks for your feedback though

I have to assume your reference to "a study of 50k people" refers to the Cleveland Clinic study, which included 1,200 who had been previously infected and were unvaccinated (not 50,000).  Given the community spread in the timeframe study it isn't particularly meaningful data that a group of 1200 had no cases among them, it does not in any way prove that they had comparable immunity to someone who was vaccinated.

A common topic in all of these conversations is what is the most effective way to address those, such as yourself, who promote false or misleading data to try and contradict the overwhelming medical consensus that getting vaccinated is the best way to avoid putting yourself and others in harms way.

A common argument is that we shouldn't be judgmental, but rather we should appeal to people's moral compass.  The problem with that I find is that you can't appeal to someone's moral compass if they don't have one.  

[jive turkey]

38 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

 

Where did you get the idea I had a preconceived conclusion? Once again making assumptions. The more you do that, the weaker your counterarguments look.   Go back and read the original post and you will see what I shared was a concern not a conclusion. Look at the 2 articles I shared initially and you can see how they have contrasting views.  I haven't been one sided about this like most of the rest of you have.

 

I referenced studies from the CDC, Cleveland Clinic and the University of Missouri. If you want to tell them their indings are pseudoscience be my guest.

  I'm sure you can tell when a poster's message is intended to be a personal attack. Don't  feign ignorance.  

 What exactly are you trying to gain by telling me what my thoughts and intentions are anymore? If you're trying to get me to see things your way you're failing at it. If you want me to agree with you that there are 0 valid reasons that someone should decline the shot (aside from contraindications) show me that reinfected people are being admitted and dying in large numbers.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

This thread is 25 pages long and I haven't seen any compelling reasons not to be vaccinated.  Not a single one.

[jive turkey]

5 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I have to assume your reference to "a study of 50k people" refers to the Cleveland Clinic study, which included 1,200 who had been previously infected and were unvaccinated (not 50,000).  Given the community spread in the timeframe study it isn't particularly meaningful data that a group of 1200 had no cases among them, it does not in any way prove that they had comparable immunity to someone who was vaccinated.

2. Such as yourself, who promote false or misleading data to try and contradict the overwhelming medical consensus that getting vaccinated is the best way to avoid putting yourself and others in harms way.

3.  The problem with that I find is that you can't appeal to someone's moral compass if they don't have one.  

1. 50k participants you read correct. This is a fine example of cherry picking.  How is it this study doesn't have meaningful data but most of you consider the CDC study of fewer than 300 Kentucky residents to be relevant? I noticed you left out 2 other studies. Are those irrelevant too? 

Double standard. 

2. Quote me on misinformation I provided. Bet you can't! What data was misleading? I referenced the CDC, Cleveland Clinic, and the University of Missouri.  If you think their studies are misinformation or misleading, write them a letter. 

3. You're right about that! I see COVID being used as an excuse for people to be hostile and condescending toward those with a different sentiment about the vaccine.   Thank you for pointing those people out!

Let me ask you a direct question.  How is it you can read multiple studies showing previously infected people are rarely reinfected, have no evidence reinfected people are admitted or dying,  yet find it unreasonable that someone may be hesitant to take the vaccine?

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

43 minutes ago, subee said:

This thread is 25 pages long and I haven't seen any compelling reasons not to be vaccinated.  Not a single one.

Medical contraindication. That's it.

[jive turkey]

3 minutes ago, Horseshoe said:

Medical contraindication. That's it.

Many posters present with an attitude that, if a reason isn't valid to them, it can't be valid for anyone.  

 

 

[BostonFNP, APRN]

2 hours ago, jive turkey said:

Where did you get the idea I had a preconceived conclusion? Once again making assumptions. The more you do that, the weaker your counterarguments look.   Go back and read the original post and you will see what I shared was a concern not a conclusion. Look at the 2 articles I shared initially and you can see how they have contrasting views.  I haven't been one sided about this like most of the rest of you have.

I am honestly not sure if you are kidding us or yourself. It is clear you have a preconceived belief. Didn't you tell me I was stating the obvious when I stated it? 

You shared two studies with contrasting opinions (which I'd argue they don't, see below) but only consider one of them valid because it fits your belief; even the title of your original post is validation seeking. I don't have a "side" in this; if you have a "side" it is further evidence of the above. You have vehemently defended your "side" from "attackers"; how do you defend a side if you have no preconceived belief? 

I referenced studies from the CDC, Cleveland Clinic and the University of Missouri. If you want to tell them their indings are pseudoscience be my guest.

The studies are fine. They aren't pseudoscience; your use of them is. You validate that which supports your opinion and invalidate that which does not. 

Here is what the Cleveland Clinic authors have to say about their own study: 

 

Quote

 

We do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19, as our study only looked at individuals over a five-month period, or how well-protected previously infected individuals are against variants. It is also important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population.  

It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive, and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it.  

 

https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2021/06/09/cleveland-clinic-statement-on-previous-covid-19-infection-research/

  I'm sure you can tell when a poster's message is intended to be a personal attack. Don't  feign ignorance.  

Again, if you feel attacked personally it's often because you are too personally/emotionally connected to the issue. And do you think you have acted similarly? 

 What exactly are you trying to gain by telling me what my thoughts and intentions are anymore? If you're trying to get me to see things your way you're failing at it. If you want me to agree with you that there are 0 valid reasons that someone should decline the shot (aside from contraindications) show me that reinfected people are being admitted and dying in large numbers.

Lots of people on the internet read these posts; my only goal is to make an attempt at making sure people that don't know better don't read your words and end up dead. Your post is "Valid Reasons Not To Get Vaccinated". If someone googles that and see this post they won't know you meant "Why It Is OK For Me To Not Be Vaccinated If I Had COVID". 

There is no scientific evidence that supports not being vaccinated outside of a real medical contraindication, of which prior anaphylactic reaction to the first dose or a component is the only reason. 

 

[jive turkey]

14 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

1.I am honestly not sure if you are kidding us or yourself. It is clear you have a preconceived belief. Didn't you tell me I was stating the obvious when I stated it? 

2.You shared two studies with contrasting opinions (which I'd argue they don't, see below) but only consider one of them valid because it fits your belief;

3. The studies are fine. They aren't pseudoscience; your use of them is.

4.Again, if you feel attacked personally it's often because you are too personally/emotionally connected to the issue.

5.If someone googles that and see this post they won't know you meant "Why It Is OK For Me To Not Be Vaccinated If I Had COVID".

6.There is no scientific evidence that supports not being vaccinated 

 

1. You said preconceived conclusion.  I said opinion.  I don't consider an opinion conclusive as it can be changed. I came to the thread open to a change of opion.  Let that one go already Boston you're beating a dead horse

2. Where did I say I only considered one valid?  Why would I share an article I thought was invalid?  I shared it because its worth considering.  You're making a very bad habit of assuming things.  You can't find one quote where I said the CDC study is invalid.

3. Oh now the studies are fine?  Most have been quite dismissive of them now they're fine.  What do you mean "my use".  Never did I say someone should use those studies as proof they shouldn't take the vaccine. Are you genuinely confused about my position on what someone should do in terms of taking the vaccine? I've stated it several times, its nothing what you're making it to be

4. There you go telling me how I feel, again. Personal attacks take away from making the subject an informational exchange of ideas converting it to a pointless fight.     I'm often left with the impression a fight is more desired on this forum than a balanced discussion.  

5. BULL.  If they read the thread they would see where I said a dozen times, previously infected or not they should talk to their doctor and see if the vaccine is appropriate for them.  HELLO.

6. All studies conclude that everyone eligible should take the vaccine.  I already recognized that. What I see, is conflicting information out there regarding how effective this drug may or may not be for some people. So telling people to take it regardless is more of a better safe than sorry approach rather than individualized IMO.  I don't have a beef with that.

You and I are going nowhere fast so here's what I'll say as my closing argument with you specifically.

I don't have a beef with people doing their research, talking to their doctor, and making an informed decision. PCR+ people who aren't high risk are the primary ones I could understand being hesitant.  I'm not on a crusade to tell people take it or not (for the 99th time)

The understanding I get from you is people don't need to make a decision, the decision has been made for them by the science you consider to be irrefutable, Dr. Fauci and the folks at the CDC so shut up and get the vaccine.  

I agree to disagree with you and don't intend to argue further with you on that point.

 

 

[hello_nurse555]

7 hours ago, FutureNP90 said:

how? 

Maybe I don't know much about the immune system, but how does this work? and how does this make more sense than the vaccine?

There are different schools of thought, and I'm not sure why you're asking instead of looking into yourself. Some say that means the body was exposed to the virus and mounted a defense before it latched. Then again we don't know much about the mechanism of the coronavirus or why some individuals are asymptomatic. The WHO went back and forth on whether asymptomatic individuals who tested positive for covid could spread the virus, and I think they settled on asymptomatic individuals don't transmit the virus. 

I noticed I was constantly exposed but didn't get sick for months. Then some peers who were the same started taking the test and had antibodies, so more of us started taking the test out of curiosity. 

It believe it's personal preference on whether you want to take the vaccine after at least 17 months of being sand blasted in the face with covid patients.   That's just how I feel.

I can respect other people's opinions, but being told what to do makes me want to do the opposite, personally. And I know a lot a lot of other hcw's who feel the same, just don't say anything, since going against the talking heads party line leads to a dogpile of bullying. Like we haven't earned our own opinions after all this. But hey to be a nurse is to be abused, really.

[hello_nurse555]

8 hours ago, Horseshoe said:

So that's a big fat lie. The delta variant has not "beat the vaccine." Vaccinated individuals are FAR less likely to suffer serious illness, hospitalization, and death than infected unvaccinated individuals. In March 2020, as we looked on in horror as we saw the deaths in Italy from this virus, if you had told us that we would soon have access to a vaccine that doesn't prevent infection 100%, but did usually prevent serious illness or death, many of us would have seen that as a huge success.

 

Hmmm well my understanding about vaccines is that you are immunized against diseases after. Where did this "Oh well it's just a mild case" become acceptable? So ya it beat the vaccine. And pretty easily if the variant came out the same month as the vaccine. We're probably in for worse soon.