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

[toomuchbaloney]

3 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Without speaking entirely on that posters behalf but sharing their sentiment for concern:

We have those who insist the vaccine is safe but acknowledge no vaccine is risk free.  The counter to that is,  how does one insist another person be compelled to take a drug on the basis of safety when they're in no position to resolve any issues for the drug recipient should they suffer from a reaction or side effect?

 

People get to choose whether or not to vaccinate.  There is proposed legislation to include the covid vaccines in VICP rather than the more burdensome and time consuming CICP. 

[jive turkey]

24 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

The data from Israel is promising, its major drawback was it was pre-delta. The predominant strain was B.1.1.7 (Alpha).

Can someone else.....

Respectfully correct me if I'm wrong or missing something 

Consideting the Delta variant was discovered in December 2020.... and vaccines released the same month and year:

Please clarify the argument natural immunity is inferior to vaccination due to delta variant and..

Please clarify the argument  that studies like this and those that reference the rarity of reinfection are less valid with respect to the delta variant?

You don't have to get mad.

I want to understand the counter arguments. 

10 minutes ago, hherrn said:

Well, how many people with an education that truly allows them to evaluate the science are unvaccinated?

Obviously there are outliers- but yes.  The higher degree of education somebody has, the more likely they are to be vaccinated.

Somebody did a study/poll on that?

Not saying you're wrong just curious

[Guest219794]

23 hours ago, jive turkey said:

2.Lack of information/ limited information offered

(Media gives information based on what gets viewers and not so much what is educational and informative)

If there are any nurses basing their opinions on the media, they need to stop.  They either need to stop doing that, or stop being nurses- the two are mutually incompatible.

23 hours ago, Honyebee said:

4. Conformity vs independence

Maybe I got this wrong- Are you thinking the unvaccinated are not engaging in conformity?

[jive turkey]

4 minutes ago, hherrn said:

1.If there are any nurses basing their opinions on the media, they need to stop.  They either need to stop doing that, or stop being nurses- the two are mutually incompatible.

2.Maybe I got this wrong- Are you thinking the unvaccinated are not engaging in conformity?

1. Please clarify #1. Everyone learned of the virus from the news as well as in the field. I assume that's not what you were referring to

2. Many feel they have scientific reasons to support their hesitancy however, their findings are being disregarded by those who disagree, employers, and governments. Couple the backlash of having a different perspective with mandates, it presents an issue of conformity vs independence. 

Yes,  there are likely those that take it, or refuse it primarily to conform with a particular group.

 

[BostonFNP, APRN]

1 hour ago, jive turkey said:

Can someone else.....

Respectfully correct me if I'm wrong or missing something 

Consideting the Delta variant was discovered in December 2020.... and vaccines released the same month and year:

Please clarify the argument natural immunity is inferior to vaccination due to delta variant and..

Please clarify the argument  that studies like this and those that reference the rarity of reinfection are less valid with respect to the delta variant?

You don't have to get mad.

I want to understand the counter arguments. 

Did I make the argument that natural immunity is inferior to vaccine-induced immunity? There has been once study that has looked at it which showed that perhaps it was. By the time a new and large enough study comes out, we will be on to a new variant. I’ve said many times, for the lay public, if you’ve had symptomatic and test-confirmed covid, vaccination is much less of an issue than the fully non-immune. Even this study excluded people that were covid positive prior to June 1, 2020.

There is scientific consensus that B.1.617.2 is significantly more infectious and causes significantly more M&M when compared with non-variant or even B.1.1.7 and B.1.351. The effect of that on vaccine-immune vs natural immune is still being evaluated, but it is already very clear about the non-immune.

 

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

Excellent film re reasons why those in ICU on High Flow Oxygen chose not to be vaccinated.

 

[BostonFNP, APRN]

42 minutes ago, NRSKarenRN said:

Excellent film re reasons why those in ICU on High Flow Oxygen chose not to be vaccinated.

I am so conflicted when I hear these testimonials. These people seem to know that covid can kill because they have witnessed friends dying but at the same time seem to think they will be just fine if they get it. Their refusal to be vaccinated really doesn’t seem to be based on bad information about the vaccines but instead on political rhetoric. The only way to combat that is for politicians to speak directly to their parties. 
 

Individual freedom is very important, I understand that, many of our countrymen have given their lives for our freedom. But freedom is not without consequence or price. If you refuse to be vaccinated and end up needing monoclonal antibody treatment and/or hospitalization then maybe there should be a special tax to offset that cost to taxpayers. If you can be proved to have exposed someone who suffered injury, perhaps you should be open to civil litigation for damages, just like a drunk driver. If a hospital has to delay treatment for someone else because you are occupying a bed as well.  Freedom comes with a consequence and price.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/world/texas-anti-mask-organizer-clings-to-life-in-a-battle-with-covid-19.html

On the flip side, I genuinely feel for his family. His kids don’t deserve this. 

 

[jive turkey]

51 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

1.Did I make the argument that natural immunity is inferior to vaccine-induced immunity?

There has been once study that has looked at it which showed that perhaps it was. By the time a new and large enough study comes out, we will be on to a new variant.

2.I’ve said many times, for the lay public, if you’ve had symptomatic and test-confirmed covid, vaccination is much less of an issue than the fully non-immune. 

3.There is scientific consensus that B.1.617.2 is significantly more infectious and causes significantly more M&M when compared with non-variant or even B.1.1.7 and B.1.351. The effect of that on vaccine-immune vs natural immune is still being evaluated, but it is already very clear about the non-immune.

 

1. Did I say Boston made that argument?  No. Perhaps you misunderstood.

Listen Boston, here's an olive branch.  I would enjoy debating with you and others, PEACEFULLY.  If you're interested in doing so, read my responses without the sentiment of attacking you on a personal level even if it reads as such.

2.  You're speaking to the point I made originally on this subject.  We agree on something.

3. I get what you're saying about the variant being more infectious. Now you may not have been among these folks.  Whenever I referenced studies showing how rare reinfection was, and someone showed a study reflecting how naturally immunity may prove superior in some respects, there are those that are dismissive of those findings claiming the variant makes them less relevant.  

I'd like to understand why people have that perspective when the vaccines came out the same time the variant was discovered.

[jive turkey]

7 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

Individual freedom is very important, I understand that, many of our countrymen have given their lives for our freedom. But freedom is not without consequence or price. If you refuse to be vaccinated and end up needing monoclonal antibody treatment and/or hospitalization then maybe there should be a special tax to offset that cost to taxpayers.

 

 

I'll see both sides of the coin on this suggestion.

We did  this with tobacco.  

We do it to a degree for air quality

In NY they put a restriction on the quantity of soda that could be dispensed, that was done away with though.

Insurance companies are starting to penalize people for being unvaccinated (See Delta Airlines)

We don't always do this for other choices people make that create a burden to tax payers and the cost of health insurance (substance abuse, sugary drinks, fast food, buffets).

I have seen some penalties for poor health choices  (junk food tax on the Navajo reservation)

 

I have concerns about taxing people yet for a drug that's in its early phases, and information regarding this disease is still emerging.  

 

[BostonFNP, APRN]

29 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

 Now you may not have been among these folks.  Whenever I referenced studies showing how rare reinfection was, and someone showed a study reflecting how naturally immunity may prove superior in some respects, there are those that are dismissive of those findings claiming the variant makes them less relevant.  

I'd like to understand why people have that perspective when the vaccines came out the same time the variant was discovered.

Re-infection is rare just like breakthrough infections are rare. I don’t think anyone is debating that, at least from what I have seen. Where the line is between the two is gray, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
 

From my perspective there are two things we do know that help guide us here: 1. There is ample evidence that even single vaccine dose markedly increases antibody titers and 2. there is a growing body of evidence on both natural and vaccine generated immunity suffers from time evolution decay. This is not as big of a problem for the vaccinated as they can/will get boosters but those with natural immunity (in all likelihood) will need to have their antibody titers re-established and that can happen via reinfection or by vaccine.  
 

Variants do/will effect both groups. How much, we will have to wait and see. I’m not sure (right now) that either have an edge. 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

6 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

I'll see both sides of the coin on this suggestion.

We did  this with tobacco.  

We do it to a degree for air quality

In NY they put a restriction on the quantity of soda that could be dispensed, that was done away with though.

Insurance companies are starting to penalize people for being unvaccinated (See Delta Airlines)

We don't always do this for other choices people make that create a burden to tax payers and the cost of health insurance (substance abuse, sugary drinks, fast food, buffets).

I have seen some penalties for poor health choices  (junk food tax on the Navajo reservation)

 

I have concerns about taxing people yet for a drug that's in its early phases, and information regarding this disease is still emerging.  

 

I heard an interview this morning on NPR Science Friday about Delta.  They claim that they have spent an average of $50,000 per employee Covid hospital admission with the unvaxxed and think there are plenty of other places to spend that money.  If I were a CEO, I would do the same thing for conditions that so easily measurable .  I can't blame them for trying to weed the employees out who choose to smoke of not Vax.  No one has shown me yet the long term consequences of a vaccine that overrode the seriousness if the disease itself.  Most people have no problem ingesting chemicals in their food but get real prissy about something  like a vaccine for a deadly pandemic.  

[BostonFNP, APRN]

9 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

 

We don't always do this for other choices people make that create a burden to tax payers and the cost of health insurance (substance abuse, sugary drinks, fast food, buffets).

I have concerns about taxing people yet for a drug that's in its early phases, and information regarding this disease is still emerging.  

 

I totally disagree with you about substance abuse. Substance abuse is an illness just like hypertension or diabetes. To call it personal choice is unacceptable. 

Diet, for some, maybe be comparable, while for others, less so. First off, one person’s diet does not directly put others at risk. Second, for some it is a choice, for others it is a necessity. A poor diet is very closely tied with socioeconomic status. 
 

Pfizer’s vaccine has full approval; there is no evidence in all of vaccine history of a non-live virus vaccine causing delayed adverse reactions nor any proposed mechanism by which that could happen. There is also no approved treatment for covid that is long established; so I’m sure you agree then that those hospitalized with covid should not be receiving tax-funded “experimental” or novel treatments?