Valid Reasons To Not Get Vaccinated

Updated:   Published

how-effective-covid-vaccines.jpg.96ffa92aaf7f3699ea2c91d50c4cb9c2.jpg

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

Specializes in A variety.
12 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Your arguing for it. That's your position. And I agree with you with some personal exceptions. The problem is so many think your argument is the only one. "Your an ANTI VAXXER IDIOT! YOU WANT GRANDMA TO DIE! GERRRR!" this nonsense needs to end. Mandates, totalitarianism, and economic destruction of many peoples lives is what is happening right now. This isn't a debate. This is politics and it's hurting allot of people unnecessarily. Maybe more people would agree with you if it didn't look like a team bloodsport. 

There are some people, you just have to put on ignore in this forum.  They are unwilling to at least empathize with arguments or perspectives contrary to their own, and will quote you incessantly to say how wrong you are.  

The hypocrisy is astounding.  I'm left with the impression some want to be correct more than they want to help their cause.  The attitude from those folks is actually driving people away from vaccinating.  I'm sure you've encountered many people who were initially hesitant about the vaccine but ultimately decided against it due to the insensitive attitudes of others regarding their concerns.  

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

Just a gentle reminder. There is a block/ignore feature on this site. It's there for you if you just can't take what certain other posters have to say.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
1 hour ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Sure thing. 

Figured I'd throw a little BMJ in here. It's a historical review. One part that stuck out to me was: 

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/how-can-vaccines-cause-damage

 

You aren’t seriously citing this as a source/evidence are you? 

 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
Just now, BostonFNP said:

You aren’t seriously citing this as a source/evidence are you? 

 

What's wrong with it?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
2 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

What's wrong with it?

It’s from 2004. 

Andrew Wakefield has not only been thoroughly  debunked but also stripped of his medical license. Anyone who supports his work is likely as wrong as he was  

No one has said vaccines have zero adverse effects. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
7 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

What's wrong with it?

It’s not a study. It’s not evidence. It’s an online opinion response to an actual published article. It is not a published article in BMJ. 

“A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal. Anyone can submit a rapid response on the journal website and they are free to access.”

The rapid response you cited itself cites two antivaccine propaganda websites as it’s evidence. I mean at least use a primary source if you are going to cite junk, that’s Research Methods 101. 

Here is a real study on the topic: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20305193

 

 

 

 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
39 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

There are some people, you just have to put on ignore in this forum.  They are unwilling to at least empathize with arguments or perspectives contrary to their own, and will quote you incessantly to say how wrong you are.  

The hypocrisy is astounding.  I'm left with the impression some want to be correct more than they want to help their cause.  The attitude from those folks is actually driving people away from vaccinating.  I'm sure you've encountered many people who were initially hesitant about the vaccine but ultimately decided against it due to the insensitive attitudes of others regarding their concerns.  

That is exactly the point in trying to get these people to understand. I'm in a bit of a fighting mood tonight so, I'm not bothered by it. I enjoy a good fight. Maybe at least one of them will get it during the battle. Us nurses can be hard headed but sometimes they turn reasonable if you say the right combination of words. They think if they brow beat people into submission, they'll just comply. They need to understand they are their own worst enemy. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
2 minutes ago, Rose_Queen said:

It’s from 2004.

And it’s not even a study it’s a blog post. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
9 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

That is exactly the point in trying to get these people to understand. I'm in a bit of a fighting mood tonight so, I'm not bothered by it. I enjoy a good fight. Maybe at least one of them will get it during the battle. Us nurses can be hard headed but sometimes they turn reasonable if you say the right combination of words. They think if they brow beat people into submission, they'll just comply. They need to understand they are their own worst enemy. 

I've shared studies, even from the CDC, that speaks to the rarity for reinfection.  We don't seem to have data regarding how many reinfected people are hospitalized or dying.  Even when you share that, what they'll do is scroll past the whole article and go to the bottom where it says the vaccine is recommended.  

Somehow, we have decided that, even when we don't see people being largely reinfected we should push a vaccine on them forcefully and deny an informed decision.  People mistake that to mean you're anti vax, spreading misinformation, trying to talk people out of it you name it.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
31 minutes ago, Rose_Queen said:

It’s from 2004. 

Andrew Wakefield has not only been thoroughly  debunked but also stripped of his medical license. Anyone who supports his work is likely as wrong as he was  

No one has said vaccines have zero adverse effects. 

Doesn't this article scream crazy?  Some way submitted an article years back on "cello scrotum" and it got printed as a serious piece.  I'm not sure why perfectly smart people can't decipher crazy when they see it.  I think about it a lot because some very intelligent family member just went nuts and keeps repeating about how masks don't work and a lockdowns kill people, etc.  Maybe when I was young I would have fallen for this.  I can't remember that far back but I like to think that  I was reasonable back then.  

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
19 minutes ago, Rose_Queen said:

It’s from 2004. 

Andrew Wakefield has not only been thoroughly  debunked but also stripped of his medical license. Anyone who supports his work is likely as wrong as he was  

No one has said vaccines have zero adverse effects. 

I'm not sure where you got the idea I agree with the autism hypothesis. I never implied that. My point was it took such a longtime for any link to be established (which interestingly was found to not be conclusive). I wasn't citing a study. I'm aware of that. I was citing an interesting quote. I'm not writing a research paper here. This is a message forum. My point remains. We don't know if a vaccine is safe for a very long time (you may have missed my original post). This is a valid concern for a new vaccine. The evidence is mainly how long it took to even determine a potential link. Just cause it's not a published peer reviewed article on a specific journal doesn't mean it's invalid. I mean do you always dismiss everything unless it's peer reviewed? Are you familiar with that peer reviewed article about hydroxychloroquin published in the lancet a few years back? They shut down major studies because it was peer reviewed. And it was found to be bunk. But I will admit I didn't go very deep into it. And I'll take that criticism. It wasn't supposed to be exhaustive. This is a message board. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
47 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

That is exactly the point in trying to get these people to understand. I'm in a bit of a fighting mood tonight so, I'm not bothered by it. I enjoy a good fight. Maybe at least one of them will get it during the battle. Us nurses can be hard headed but sometimes they turn reasonable if you say the right combination of words. They think if they brow beat people into submission, they'll just comply. They need to understand they are their own worst enemy. 

We don't need to fight. An intelligent and respectful discourse should always be the goal. Emotions get in the way of that. And the same may be said of you. I believe YOU are your own worst enemy.

Have a good night/day!

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion