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 Acute Dialysis.
2 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

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.  

Incorrect. They are not conflated. They are one in the same in this case. It's valid because it must, by law and ethics be respected. You have no say in what is reasonable to someone. Reasonable (one definition of valid) to a study? Sure. But not when it comes to consent. The frame of reference changes. But it appears you do not understand this. 

Just now, subee said:

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

THAT IS WHAT IS MAKING PEOPLE NOT BELIEVE YOUR SIDE! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Incorrect. They are not conflated. They are one in the same in this case. It's valid because it must, by law and ethics be respected. You have no say in what is reasonable to someone. Reasonable (one definition of valid) to a study? Sure. But not when it comes to consent. The frame of reference changes. But it appears you do not understand this. 

You can own the crazy reasoning of patients who refuse recommended care if you prefer, but that's your  choice.  The patient refuses the vaccinebecause they verbalize fear that the vaccine will make them infertile.  You, as the nurse, withhold the vaccine because the patient refused...not because you think the vaccine will make them infertile...right? 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
6 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

THAT IS WHAT IS MAKING PEOPLE NOT BELIEVE YOUR SIDE! 

So you say.  Yet it appears that people are refusing vaccination because of misinformation and feelings which are then blamed upon health professionals and others not sympathizing with their fears and fabricated concerns.  It's a pattern. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

Science.

Science is inanimate and has to be interpreted.

I asked you WHO, not WHAT decides what is valid for someone. 

How do you figure you get to decide what is valid for someone else? 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
3 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You can own the crazy reasoning of patients who refuse recommended care if you prefer, but that's your  choice.  The patient refuses the vaccinebecause they verbalize fear that the vaccine will make them infertile.  You, as the nurse, withhold the vaccine because the patient refused...not because you think the vaccine will make them infertile...right? 

Correct. I don't need to AGREE with their reason (and I wouldn't). But, their reason is VALID as a matter of law and ethics. If they end up with bells palsy, they have only themselves to blame, unless they refuse and end up with the same thing or worse. The question of whether a reason is valid or not is a question of informed consent. If they don't trust you, they don't care if you have a scientific accurate explanation. In the case of informed consent, they don't need a "scientifically accurate reason." They can simply say, "I don't want it." And that would be a valid reason. 

6 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

So you say.  Yet it appears that people are refusing vaccination because of misinformation and feelings which are then blamed upon health professionals and others not sympathizing with their fears and fabricated concerns.  It's a pattern. 

And who is to blame for their distrust of the medical community?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Correct. I don't need to AGREE with their reason (and I wouldn't). But, their reason is VALID as a matter of law and ethics. If they end up with bells palsy, they have only themselves to blame, unless they refuse and end up with the same thing or worse. The question of whether a reason is valid or not is a question of informed consent. If they don't trust you, they don't care if you have a scientific accurate explanation. In the case of informed consent, they don't need a "scientifically accurate reason." They can simply say, "I don't want it." And that would be a valid reason. 

No.

Their reason is noted and it is accepted but it is not validated by you doing the correct thing. 

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

 

No, you changed the question and answered that. I didn't change your silly hypothetical question that didn't apply to me. So don't be a coward (in your words) and answer the question. I'll make it really simple: what do you say to someone that didn't get vaccinated (for one of the "valid" reasons proposed on this thread) and ended up dead or killing a family member?

The cowardice was owned by one of your previous answers,  don't even try it. 

Now your "simplified" question makes more sense to ask.  

Remember: I said if someone talked to their doctor, wasn't high risk, survived COVID and decided for themselves not to take it, I would consider that a valid reason.  

So when you ask me, based off that being a valid reason, what do I say?

I already told you.   I offer support and express condolences. They made a decision for themselves, it's not my place to comment on it no matter the end result. 

I don't think people should ride motorcycles. I don't run to their funeral to say "mmmm should have driven a car"

A good friend of mine died from COVID and had his own reasons for how he managed his health.  So Boston you can ease up.

You condone mandates, that's why I asked what you do to those who suffer as a result of complying.  I don't condone someone who isn't a provider or guardian telling someone to take a drug or not. 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
10 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Science is inanimate and has to be interpreted.

I asked you WHO, not WHAT decides what is valid for someone. 

How do you figure you get to decide what is valid for someone else? 

 

Certainly poorly informed lay people following quacks and conmen don't determine what is or isn't valid. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

.  I don't condone someone who isn't a provider or guardian telling someone to take a drug or not. 

You condone remaining unvaccinated for poorly sourced, inaccurate and/or emotional reasons and you call those reasons valid while repeating them and praising the basis for remaining unvaccinated.  

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
9 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

No.

Their reason is noted and it is accepted but it is not validated by you doing the correct thing. 

Correct. That's The point. It doesn't NEED to be validatED by anything whatsoever. It is valid regardless. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
15 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Science is inanimate and has to be interpreted.

I asked you WHO, not WHAT decides what is valid for someone. 

How do you figure you get to decide what is valid for someone else? 

 

You're conflating what is valid (scientifically accurate) with what someone perceives to be valid, a person with delusions no doubt considers those delusional beliefs to be valid, that doesn't make them valid.  

Just now, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Correct. That's The point. It doesn't NEED to be validatED by anything whatsoever. It is valid regardless. 

Something that is objectively false is not "valid regardless", being objectively false makes it invalid.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
10 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

The cowardice was owned by one of your previous answers,  don't even try it. 

Now your "simplified" question makes more sense to ask.  

Remember: I said if someone talked to their doctor, wasn't high risk, survived COVID and decided for themselves not to take it, I would consider that a valid reason.  

So when you ask me, based off that being a valid reason, what do I say?

I already told you.   I offer support and express condolences. They made a decision for themselves, it's not my place to comment on it no matter the end result. 

I don't think people should ride motorcycles. I don't run to their funeral to say "mmmm should have driven a car"

A good friend of mine died from COVID and had his own reasons for how he managed his health.  So Boston you can ease up.

You condone mandates, that's why I asked what you do to those who suffer as a result of complying.  I don't condone someone who isn't a provider or guardian telling someone to take a drug or not. 

 

The overwhelming consensus of Providers is currently that everyone 12 and older should be vaccinated.  You're the non-provider suggesting reasons to not get vaccinated.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion