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.
6 hours ago, BostonFNP said:

You didn’t explain where you recently heard about a patent from 2003. 

Private companies develop and manufacture the vaccination (there are 172 covid vaccines in development/use). The government independently regulates those vaccines and makes recommendations. I have never seen evidence of widespread corruption in this process. 
 

Insurance companies cut costs wherever they can both on the patient and the payor side of the equation. But this is not even in the same ballpark as what you are suggesting about vaccines. 
 

Again, you brought his up based on a patent in 2003 which is no longer applicable to the current patent law and has nothing to do with covid-19. 

 

OK Boston

What I understand from you is it's inconceivable there's any potential for corruption regarding this situation.

I would have to go waaaaaay off topic to discuss corruption with you and give you facts.  

I'm not even inclined to do it or convey the point anymore.  It's one thing to debate with someone that expresses having an open mind and is receptive to considering other perspectives.  I don't get that sentiment from you.  I fully appreciate your support for vaccination and the benefits for those never infected and at high risk. I agreed with you to a degree on other points.

But the thrill is gone.  I do appreciate your feedback.  I respectfully agree to disagree with you. 

Good day

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
20 hours ago, jive turkey said:

1. Was that disputed?  Not sure why you shared that

2. What's absurd is how you twisted my words around to say something completely unlike what I originally said.  I didn't say nobody knows if its a bad thing I said the disease isn't fully understood.  

3. I didn't say it imparted life long immunity.  And the vaccine doesn't either. A lifetime hasn't passed for you to conclusively say that about the previously infected.  Various sources say different things regarding the length of natural immunity

4. Yet we put people in harms way every day legally.  You want to go there and have me show you all the various ways we do?

 

Munro help me understand your perspective.  In summary I have said:

-Everyone talk to their doctor to see if the vaccine is appropriate for them

-If someone never had it, I favor them taking the risk from the vaccine over the risk of getting COVID the first time

-If someone already had COVID, talked to their doctor, wasn't high risk, I can respect them not wanting to take it.

-stop the criticism and disrespect of the unvaccinated

Every time I post you have an objection which is fine.  Whats wrong to you about the above?

You responded to another poster's claim that overall, getting vaccinated prevents death and harm, which you then appeared to dispute by listing reasons why this may not be true, included that we don't fully understand the disease.

If you were actually trying to agree with the previous poster's claim, it didn't come across clearly.

When there are patient-specific decisions to be made about whether a vaccine is indicated for someone then that is when patient's should come to a decision after consultation with their doctor.  The overwhelming medical consensus is that everyone should be vaccinated, this is not a patient-specific question.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
19 hours ago, jive turkey said:

Allow me to clarify what all the patent discussion is about so we aren't bantering back n forth about the finer details of patents.

Whenever money is involved there is a risk for corruption.

We now have a product that has potential for requiring indefinite boosters being sold for profit with mandates by governments and institutions.  

We should hope to be fortunate enough the strategy of mandating drugs won't be abused or exploited as a means to achieve consistent and significant financial gains by the greedy.  

If what I'm saying borders conspiracy theory from your perspective let me further elaborate why I have concerns when money is involved in health care.  I'm sure you've witnessed countless occasions someone was denied care, received inferior care, or had it cut short because of the insurance companies.  Those are fine examples where profits are put ahead of patients.  

I don't see vaccines as being exempt from the same challenges.  It doesn't mean the vaccine is without its benefits.  It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our eyes peeled and ask questions.

It's reasonable to ask questions, but it's not reasonable to fuel vaccine resistance because you're suggesting something in your question that isn't true.

My ICU is full of otherwise healthy people who are almost all in their 40's (we have one in their 50's) and we have two peds even though we don't do peds.  All of the adult ICU patients were repeating many of the same questionable to outright conspiracy theories that you have been offering as why they didn't get vaccinated, now most of them who don't die will likely wish they had.  

You feel no hesitancy about spreading these ideas given the effects these ideas are having?

6
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
19 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

You responded to another poster's claim that overall, getting vaccinated prevents death and harm, which you then appeared to dispute by listing reasons why this may not be true, included that we don't fully understand the disease.

If you were actually trying to agree with the previous poster's claim, it didn't come across clearly.

When there are patient-specific decisions to be made about whether a vaccine is indicated for someone then that is when patient's should come to a decision after consultation with their doctor.  The overwhelming medical consensus is that everyone should be vaccinated, this is not a patient-specific question.

These threads are getting so long, and so many of you are quoting me at the same time I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.  Which poster are you referring to?

I asked a question. I'm not sure I received a clear answer from you.  

I disagree with you that vaccination is not patient specific.  There's a great deal of evidence showing reinfection is rare.  Suggestions to vaccinate that follow those studies to me, come across as a better safe than sorry approach.

21 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

It's reasonable to ask questions, but it's not reasonable to fuel vaccine resistance because you're suggesting something in your question that isn't true.

 

You feel no hesitancy about spreading these ideas given the effects these ideas are having?

-What did I say that's untrue?

-What "idea" am I spreading?

-What "conspiracy theory" did I offer?

Every time people on here accuse me of such things, they can never go back and quote me to substantiate the accusation.  If something I said came across that way, show me so I can clarify it for you.  It's not that hard to see I have an open minded balanced perspective on this issue.  I'm just not one sided about it.

I've said dozens of times, I'm not on a mission to tell people not to get the vaccine.  Don't accuse me of fueling vaccine resistance.  I've argued that those sharing your perspective are fueling resistance by bullying, being rude, disrespectful, and denying any science that doesn't support vaccinating everyone without question.

I don't discount the 40 people in your ICU, that's serious!

I also don't discount the millions that have recovered and have a different perspective 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
3 hours ago, jive turkey said:

OK Boston

What I understand from you is it's inconceivable there's any potential for corruption regarding this situation.

This is another example of a logical fallacy. Of course the is potential for corruption; the probability of widespread corruption is very small. 

You didn’t mention where you recently came into contact with a 2003 patent? 

3 hours ago, jive turkey said:

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
24 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

This is another example of a logical fallacy. Of course the is potential for corruption; the probability of widespread corruption is very small. 

You didn’t mention where you recently came into contact with a 2003 patent? 

 

It's a logical fallacy but you just affirmed what I said earlier?.  I said whenever money is involved there is a risk for corruption.  You said of course there is potential for corruption.  Neither of us has proof of the degree of probability......  so what are you debating?

As for patents,  you already said you think it's harmless.  I let it go already.  Did you just want to debate it some more or are you concerned about it and feel the need to debunk the source?

I also told you I made a separate thread about it.  Go to it if you want to see the source I referenced and debate.

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
4 hours ago, jive turkey said:

Suggestions to vaccinate that follow those studies to me, come across as a better safe than sorry approach.

YES!! SANITY! I JUST SMELLED SANITY! it smells GOOOOD ?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
26 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

It's a logical fallacy but you just affirmed what I said earlier?.  I said whenever money is involved there is a risk for corruption.  You said of course there is potential for corruption.  Neither of us has proof of the degree of probability......  so what are you debating?

As for patents,  you already said you think it's harmless.  I let it go already.  Did you just want to debate it some more or are you concerned about it and feel the need to debunk the source?

I also told you I made a separate thread about it.  Go to it if you want to see the source I referenced and debate.

 

The potential for corruption is not evidence of corruption. I almost hate to say it again, but this is yet another logical fallacy. 
 

I just found the thread and checked your source: it’s from 2003. How’d you suddenly find and article from 2003?

You were quoted below. How do you feel about being considered support for unconditional resistance to vaccination? I know that your quote referenced the specific case of vaccination following lab confirmed symptomatic infection, but the poster below took to to mean for anyone that doesn’t want to get vaccinated.  This is the risk of your words. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
39 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

1.The potential for corruption is not evidence of corruption. I almost hate to say it again, but this is yet another logical fallacy. 
 

2.I just found the thread and checked your source: it’s from 2003. How’d you suddenly find and article from 2003?

3.You were quoted below. How do you feel about being considered support for unconditional resistance to vaccination? I know that your quote referenced the specific case of vaccination following lab confirmed symptomatic infection, but the poster below took to to mean for anyone that doesn’t want to get vaccinated.  This is the risk of your words. 

1. When did I say there was EVIDENCE of corruption?

Go find where I said that then try again.

 You should hate to assert logical fallacies because you're arguing things that weren't said while affirming things I did.  

2. You already stated your position on patents.  You could have replied there and didn't.  So now,  I'm not interested in debating it with you further.  Take a hint dear.

3. I didn't write that, someone else did.  That person has yet to clarify what they're talking about and likely misunderstood what I said.  From the looks of it, you're not familiar with the discussion between him and I either.  I recommend you move on from it unless you can be more specific.

 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
6 hours ago, jive turkey said:

These threads are getting so long, and so many of you are quoting me at the same time I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.  Which poster are you referring to?

I asked a question. I'm not sure I received a clear answer from you.  

I disagree with you that vaccination is not patient specific.  There's a great deal of evidence showing reinfection is rare.  Suggestions to vaccinate that follow those studies to me, come across as a better safe than sorry approach.

-What did I say that's untrue?

-What "idea" am I spreading?

-What "conspiracy theory" did I offer?

Every time people on here accuse me of such things, they can never go back and quote me to substantiate the accusation.  If something I said came across that way, show me so I can clarify it for you.  It's not that hard to see I have an open minded balanced perspective on this issue.  I'm just not one sided about it.

I've said dozens of times, I'm not on a mission to tell people not to get the vaccine.  Don't accuse me of fueling vaccine resistance.  I've argued that those sharing your perspective are fueling resistance by bullying, being rude, disrespectful, and denying any science that doesn't support vaccinating everyone without question.

I don't discount the 40 people in your ICU, that's serious!

I also don't discount the millions that have recovered and have a different perspective 

It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that your claims that "reinfection is rare" is based on rates of reinfection of an alpha variant Covid shortly after(within 6 months or so) with another alpha infection.  What the concern is currently is with delta (not alpha) infection at greater than 6 months from previous alpha infection.  

You have shown absolutely no evidence that a previous alpha infection provides reasonable protection from a delta infection greater than a year out from the initial alpha infection.

You should review the definition of felony level reckless homicide, because I'm having a hard time figuring out how it doesn't apply to what you've been saying.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
29 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

1.It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that your claims that "reinfection is rare" is based on rates of reinfection of an alpha variant Covid shortly after(within 6 months or so) with another alpha infection.  What the concern is currently is with delta (not alpha) infection at greater than 6 months from previous alpha infection.  

2.You have shown absolutely no evidence that a previous alpha infection provides reasonable protection from a delta infection greater than a year out from the initial alpha infection.

3.You should review the definition of felony level reckless homicide, 

1.  These aren't "my claims".   I submitted studies, including from the CDC that stated reinfection is rare.  I didn't make arguments about variants. If you don't like the language complain to the following:

https://www.CDC.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html

Did you see the part that says "Cases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been reported, but remain rare."

That's updated Aug 6, 2021

What you got to say now?

If you don't like the language about how uncommon reinfection is, complain to the following entities:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

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

https://medicine.missouri.edu/news/study-finds-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-1-those-severe-illness

2. Go back to the original post.  Did I ever say I could show reinfection rates among those exposed to the Delta?  NOPE. Can you?  Please share if you have information.  Do you have hospitalization and death rates among the reinfected?  Nobody has been able to share that.

3. Definition of reckless homicide:

"going on a nursing forum stating you have concerns how effective a COVID vaccine is for the previously infected, referencing the CDC and other scholarly sources while saying everyone should talk to their doctor and see if the vaccine is appropriate for them"

Maximum sentence:  A spankin'

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Mr Anti Vax dead from Covid!

Seems like a huge mistake to lose your life over getting a vaccine or using a mask? 

Guess that's what free choice is all about? 

Wonder if he's decided prior, which one of the imported morgue trucks he'll be in? Bet you it's a red one? 

No sympathy whatsoever, because with his platform, who knows how many people he murdered! 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion