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]

7 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Nice pivot. That's not the issue. The issue is "what is a valid reason to refuse vaccination." Ties into mandates and arguments of legality etc. 

And someone's crazy thinking, used as a reason to refuse vaccination or treatment is still just a crazy reason...the fact that they get to choose doesn't validate their reason. You must not want to understand this...

9 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

You seem incapable of understanding the concept of "frames of reference."

Why don't you explain then, how a frame of reference makes an argument valid. 

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

2 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

If you're referring to mandates for nurses then no, that's not the "future of nursing", it's the foundation of nursing.

Modern nursing in large part started with Florence Nightingale, who was at least as well known as a statistician as a nurse.  One of her main impacts on healthcare was to identify causes of avoidable harm to patients, and to advocate for reducing that potential harm.  The same basic concept is why nurses are required to be vaccinated.

Now THAT is reaching. A large part of her work was introducing basic hygiene. Non invasive measures that hadn't been recognized by physicians. That is irrelevant to the concept of informed consent. Your basic premise is only valid if vaccination stops transmission. It does not. The vaccine has lost much effectiveness with variants (down to 40% last I heard). Even if vaccination stopped severe illness (which it does in many cases), the virus remains transmissible in vaccinated people making your argument moot.

[toomuchbaloney]

3 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Now THAT is reaching. A large part of her work was introducing basic hygiene. Non invasive measures that hadn't been recognized by physicians. That is irrelevant to the concept of informed consent. Your basic premise is only valid if vaccination stops transmission. It does not. The vaccine has lost much effectiveness with variants (down to 40% last I heard). Even if vaccination stopped severe illness (which it does in many cases), the virus remains transmissible in vaccinated people making your argument moot.

Nonsense. 

None of that negates the fact that there aren't valid reasons to remain unvaccinated at this time. There are medical contraindications.  

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

6 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Why don't you explain then, how a frame of reference makes an argument valid

I will try again. A valid reason is one that makes sense. I hope we can agree. Or "reasonable" if you like. In terms of scientific studies and data, singing can make sense, until new information congress in, then it might not make sense. In the case of "does the pt have a valid reason", it is a different matter. Because, a pt (and this can be a nurse of they are the one choosing to be vaccinated) must have a reason to accept our refuse that makes sense TO THEM. To them.

They are the reference. Maybe you think it's stupid. It doesn't matter what you think. Your frame of reference may not accept a reason of "I don't like how new it is. Only one year of data. I don't want it." Their frame of reference is their personal frame of reference. And legally speaking, their frame of reference is the only one in play. Thus, of they decide they have a valid reason to refuse, that is valid to THEM. and thus they have a valid reason to refuse. It must be this way in fact. Not saying there's no consequences. Not saying they are "correct" (maybe they are and we'll find out in a couple years, who knows). But the question is, what is a valid reason to refuse. Their reason is the valid one. 

7 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Nonsense. 

None of that negates the fact that there aren't valid reasons to remain unvaccinated at this time. There are medical contraindications.  

I'm surprised your side can't grasp the concept of informed consent.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

3 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Now THAT is reaching. A large part of her work was introducing basic hygiene. Non invasive measures that hadn't been recognized by physicians. That is irrelevant to the concept of informed consent. Your basic premise is only valid if vaccination stops transmission. It does not. The vaccine has lost much effectiveness with variants (down to 40% last I heard). Even if vaccination stopped severe illness (which it does in many cases), the virus remains transmissible in vaccinated people making your argument moot.

I'm not going to check your 40% figure.  But if ICU admissions could drop by 40% that wouldn't that worthwhile?  If any baby could avoid hospital admission that wouldn't be worthwhile.  Will only 100% effectiveness be your lowest number you will accept?  Why do you insist on all or nothing?  Is tormenting  nursing and medical staffs worth it to you to preserve some sort of ideology or whatever it I that makes you resistant to reason.  You always look for the slippery slope that doesn't exist.  I'm sure Flo would consider viral cooties as important as bacterial cooties when it comes to hygiene, even if she didn't see viruses coming in the future.  The argument is not moot.

[MunoRN, RN]

8 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Now THAT is reaching. A large part of her work was introducing basic hygiene. Non invasive measures that hadn't been recognized by physicians. That is irrelevant to the concept of informed consent. Your basic premise is only valid if vaccination stops transmission. It does not. The vaccine has lost much effectiveness with variants (down to 40% last I heard). Even if vaccination stopped severe illness (which it does in many cases), the virus remains transmissible in vaccinated people making your argument moot.

Vaccines have shown to reduce the potential for the vaccinated to infect others, depending on the study, vaccination reduces transmission to others to a third to a half of the risk.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

Just now, subee said:

I'm not going to check your 40% figure.  But if ICU admissions could drop by 40% that wouldn't that worthwhile?  If any baby could avoid hospital admission that wouldn't be worthwhile.  Will only 100% effectiveness be your lowest number you will accept?  Why do you insist on all or nothing?  Is tormenting  nursing and medical staffs worth it to you to preserve some sort of ideology or whatever it I that makes you resistant to reason.  You always look for the slippery slope that doesn't exist.  I'm sure Flo would consider viral cooties as important as bacterial cooties when it comes to hygiene, even if she didn't see viruses coming in the future.  The argument is not moot.

The argument is about "what does valid mean." Heres a scenario. Let's lock everyone into a cell separated by Plexi glass until coof goes away. That would work would it not? We can come up with all kinds of ideas. But that's not the point I'm arguing.

I'm telling you that a pts reason to accept or refuse is a valid one because they are the person making the decision. 

[MunoRN, RN]

Just now, 10GaugeNeedles said:

The argument is about "what does valid mean." Heres a scenario. Let's lock everyone into a cell separated by Plexi glass until coof goes away. That would work would it not? We can come up with all kinds of ideas. But that's not the point I'm arguing.

I'm telling you that a pts reason to accept or refuse is a valid one because they are the person making the decision. 

That is absolutely not what "valid" means.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

4 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Vaccines have shown to reduce the potential for the vaccinated to infect others, depending on the study, vaccination reduces transmission to others to a third to a half of the risk.

I'm not going to argue against the effectiveness of vaccines. The data is still coming in. I believe they do illicit an immune response. If that were the only question, there's the answer. But that's not the only question. People want to know there are no long term injury from the vaccine itself. We don't know that yet. We only know, over millions of people, there is a reasonably low risk of injury. Some people don't even want a reasonable risk of injury. That's their decision to make. 

[toomuchbaloney]

13 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I will try again. A valid reason is one that makes sense. I hope we can agree. Or "reasonable" if you like. In terms of scientific studies and data, singing can make sense, until new information congress in, then it might not make sense. In the case of "does the pt have a valid reason", it is a different matter. Because, a pt (and this can be a nurse of they are the one choosing to be vaccinated) must have a reason to accept our refuse that makes sense TO THEM. To them.

They are the reference. Maybe you think it's stupid. It doesn't matter what you think. Your frame of reference may not accept a reason of "I don't like how new it is. Only one year of data. I don't want it." Their frame of reference is their personal frame of reference. And legally speaking, their frame of reference is the only one in play. Thus, of they decide they have a valid reason to refuse, that is valid to THEM. and thus they have a valid reason to refuse. It must be this way in fact. Not saying there's no consequences. Not saying they are "correct" (maybe they are and we'll find out in a couple years, who knows). But the question is, what is a valid reason to refuse. Their reason is the valid one. 

I'm surprised your side can't grasp the concept of informed consent.

Nope. Your frame of reference language doesn't make something valid.  Again, belief is not the same as valid. Informed consent is a different topic that doesn't define a patient's objection as valid or invalid. You keep conflating the issues.  

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

3 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

That is absolutely not what "valid" means.

Just heard a guy report that a few days after his kid got the vaccine, he died. You may not believe him, but you weren't there. Now, whether or not the vaccine actually caused the death (the diagnosis was "enlarged heart" which is unlikely to show no symptoms long term if it wasn't acute so, let's assume it was acute and caused by the vaccine), do you think that father would accept you telling him his decision to vaccinate his kid was reasonable when he thinks the vaccine killed his kid? I think he'd probably spit in your face of you told him that. 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

2 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Just heard a guy report that a few days after his kid got the vaccine, he died. You may not believe him, but you weren't there. Now, whether or not the vaccine actually caused the death (the diagnosis was "enlarged heart" which is unlikely to show no symptoms long term if it wasn't acute so, let's assume it was acute and caused by the vaccine), do you think that father would accept you telling him his decision to vaccinate his kid was reasonable when he thinks the vaccine killed his kid? I think he'd probably spit in your face of you told him that. 

Some guy reported.....yeah, that's gotta be real.