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.
1 minute ago, MunoRN said:

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

Not when it comes to consent. The pts reasons are their own. Your opinion that their concerns are not valid is irrelevant TO CONSENT. In any case EVERYONE who doesn't like these vaccines is considered stupid by your side. By suggesting this your are disregarding all the actual risks that HAVE been linked, such as myocarditis and bells palsy etc. What if they didn't want that miniscule risk? That's their choice. And that choice is in fact scientifically based. 

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

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

Nope.

They believe it's valid just like they believe the wrong thing.  The RN'S acknowledgment of the flawed reasoning doesn't validate the flawed reasoning. This is basic. 

It seems you don't understand how to vet information and separate fact from feelings when it comes to covid vaccines. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Nope.

They believe it's valid just like they believe the wrong thing.  The RN'S acknowledgment of the flawed reasoning doesn't validate the flawed reasoning. This is basic. 

It seems you don't understand how to vet information and separate fact from feelings when it comes to covid vaccines. 

It seems you don't understand informed consent.

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

It seems you don't understand informed consent.

We aren't talking about informed consent, we're discussing values reasons to not vaccinate.  They can decline to consent but that doesn't mean that their refusal was based in valid or sound reasoning.  

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
1 minute ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

Not when it comes to consent. The pts reasons are their own. Your opinion that their concerns are not valid is irrelevant TO CONSENT. In any case EVERYONE who doesn't like these vaccines is considered stupid by your side. By suggesting this your are disregarding all the actual risks that HAVE been linked, such as myocarditis and bells palsy etc. What if they didn't want that miniscule risk? That's their choice. And that choice is in fact scientifically based. 

Again, that's not quite true when it comes to consent, patients have to display a basic understanding of the medication, procedure, etc in order to consent.

But if you're referring to a suggestion that those mandated to get vaccinated as a condition of employment are have vaccines forcibly injected to them despite their refusal then no, that's not correct.

If a person says they don't want the vaccine because they don't care if they are increasing the risk of harm to themselves, or others, then you are correct, there factual basis is "valid".  I don't agree with their individual views on protecting others, but I can't argue with their description of the facts.

But if the person is claiming that our scientific knowledge of vaccination shows it to be more harmful than Covid then no, that is not scientifically based.

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

 The vaccine has lost much effectiveness with variants (down to 40% last I heard). 

Source please.

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

1.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.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.  

1.Eennnnnnnttt! Wrong. 

Being understanding of a previously infected person not vaccinating is NOT the same as suggestion one should or not.  Quote me saying people shouldn't.  Bet cha can't! 

You keep twisting my words but when I call you out to quote me, you can't. 

2. Negative. You keep using "the science" as your answer.  Science shows reinfection is rare.  Showed you about 5 or 6 studies to confirm that.  Its understandable if someone decides for themselves "the science" doesn't give them good enough reason to take it. You're free to disagree. You don't get to decide what's valid for somebody.  "The science" on this issue is not conclusive in all respects.

P.s. the use of the phrases "You're conflating" and "the science" is getting awfully cliche in this thread.  It sounds like a crutch for weak arguments

 

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

 People want to know there are no long term injury from the vaccine itself. We don't know that yet. 

In the history of vaccines, please show us a single non-live vaccine that resulted in any significant side effects that presented months to years later.

OR

Please share a proposed mechanism on how long term injury might appear down the road months to years. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Customer service.

Antivaxx sold fake vaccine card.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
2 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

In the history of vaccines, please show us a single non-live vaccine that resulted in any significant side effects that presented months to years later.

OR

Please share a proposed mechanism on how long term injury might appear down the road months to years. 

In the history of vaccines, please show us an example of this new mrna tech being used on a large human population. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
1 minute ago, jive turkey said:

Being understanding of a previously infected person not vaccinating is NOT the same as suggestion one should or not. 

Science shows reinfection is rare.  

You keep goin back to this argument, yet this not what the thread is about, and it's not what most people are discussing. We get that is your situation and it seems to be all you are able to comprehend, but there is still 100 million people in this country that have no immunity. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
8 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

Source please.

 

Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

-still effective but significantly lower. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion