Apparently per the EEOC's guidelines employers (not just healthcare related) can mandate vaccination of workers. The exception is a "sincerely held religious belief" or a covered disability. Just found out this morning that a chain of for profit LTC/SNF's are rolling out a Covid vaccine mandate for all direct care staff or face indefinite unpaid administrative leave. I am a heavy supporter of vaccination and of the new COVID vaccine and in fact am due to get one in early January. But I am doing so of my own volition. My facility encouraged all workers to sign up for a vaccine and provided information sessions and it's been really effective at getting people to sign up.
Even though I would disagree with someone's choice to not vaccinate, I don't believe they should be mandated at this point.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Quote
the fact remains that on the order of 30 to 50% of Americans (more in red states less in blue) will decline to get this vaccine until they are convinced that it is both safe and effective (a smaller subset will decline without regard to what evidence they are presented with). I do think that upwards of 70% of RN's even in Red states will take the vaccine on a voluntary basis, but that is a different population from than the "average citizen".
When a bunch of people decide to refuse vaccination based upon fear mongering, misinformation and political rhetoric how would you propose to convince those poorly informed people of safety or efficacy? Those same people were told for 4 years that they shouldn't trust the government or the people who work in government agencies as a lifetime profession...they were convinced by a liar and conman that some deep state conspiracy was a huge problem for the federal government. Of course, that was all a deflection and projection designed to take the scrutiny of off the corrupt incompetence of the entire administration of grifters and charlatans.
Are you recommending deprogramming for those cult members who refuse vaccination because a corrupt and impeached political figure convinced them that covid is all based in some devious plot? As a mental health professional how would you recommend that the country go about correcting belligerently ignorant vaccine refusal? How do you convince people that won't accept facts, evidence or science preferring to let fear or partisan political feelings decide for them?
When a bunch of people decide to refuse vaccination based upon fear mongering, misinformation and political rhetoric how would you propose to convince those poorly informed people of safety or efficacy? Those same people were told for 4 years that they shouldn't trust the government or the people who work in government agencies as a lifetime profession...they were convinced by a liar and conman that some deep state conspiracy was a huge problem for the federal government. Of course, that was all a deflection and projection designed to take the scrutiny of off the corrupt incompetence of the entire administration of grifters and charlatans.
Are you recommending deprogramming for those cult members who refuse vaccination because a corrupt and impeached political figure convinced them that covid is all based in some devious plot? As a mental health professional how would you recommend that the country go about correcting belligerently ignorant vaccine refusal? How do you convince people that won't accept facts, evidence or science preferring to let fear or partisan political feelings decide for them?
I disagree with your presumptions and premises. I do not believe that the previous administration was perfect nor do I find it to have been excessively corrupt (at least in the context of Washington). I do not believe Trump supporter to be on the whole in any way less intelligent or wise than those who support Biden. Rather I believe that on the whole both groups (for lack of a better term call them Biden and Trump supporters) support those that they do for complex and personal reasons that affirm different mores and value sets. I believe that both groups deserve respect and neither can or should be "deprogrammed". Rather, I believe that respectful discussion and debate may be the best path forward for peaceful coexistence of extraordinarily different value sets. Even military members are declining this vaccination (at least Marines) at a rate of around 40% and they cannot be forced under current law to take it because it is authorized under "emergency use" (although some members of Congress are suggesting that Biden overrule this). It is perhaps fortunate that this did not occur at least with the Johnson and Johnson vaccine given that it has now been removed for safety concerns.
. Even military members are declining this vaccination (at least Marines) at a rate of around 40% and they cannot be forced under current law to take it because it is authorized under "emergency use" (although some members of Congress are suggesting that Biden overrule this). It is perhaps fortunate that this did not occur at least with the Johnson and Johnson vaccine given that it has now been removed for safety concerns.
According to the CNN report on this there are a number of reasons for declining the offer of vaccination including allowing others to receive it first or having gotten it through other channels, both of which do not indicate that they are refusing vaccination altogether.
J&J has not been "removed". It is on hold, pending review of 6 episodes out of nearly 7 million doses administered. My guess is a predisposed genetic condition leading to blood clots and thrombocytopenia. Good for the CDC for picking up this signal and investigating. VAERS and VSafe at work!
According to the CNN report on this there are a number of reasons for declining the offer of vaccination including allowing others to receive it first or having gotten it through other channels, both of which do not indicate that they are refusing vaccination altogether.
J&J has not been "removed". It is on hold, pending review of 6 episodes out of nearly 7 million doses administered. My guess is a predisposed genetic condition leading to blood clots and thrombocytopenia. Good for the CDC for picking up this signal and investigating. VAERS and VSafe at work!
An alternative hypothesis is that those getting the clots have higher Covid antibody titers and or active infection. Again further studies could help stratify further which explanation (or both) have validity.
Here's a fundamental question of why some people won't take the vaccine.
They are generally in the category of believers in God or are creationists etc and can be given all the evidence in the world BUT cannot afford to believe or change their minds, because it would mean changing their nature and giving up on their fundamentals of religion or a similar faith based philosophy, whereas vaccinated people are evidenced based AND SIGNIFICANTLY not religiously inclined or creationists etc, BUT if they were given EVIDENCE of a God or that creationist theory was true, THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY change their minds! Because they are fact driven. Evidence and truth is their fundamental nature!
Someone like Trump can't fool them or a Televangelists couldn't lead them astray! They don't have faith in anything except facts and evidence! They are realistic!
Who do you think gets disappointed more? People who are analytical and believe in researching their interests for more predictable outcomes or those who trust that an unknown all seeing, all powerful entity will protect them?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
On 4/14/2021 at 5:00 PM, myoglobin said:
An alternative hypothesis is that those getting the clots have higher Covid antibody titers and or active infection. Again further studies could help stratify further which explanation (or both) have validity.
Can you link to an example of that hypothesis discussed in a credible journal?
Can you link to an example that hypothesis discussed in a credible journal?
Have we come to the point where in order to have a thought that is different or divergent that it must first be published in a peer reviewed journal? Have we evolved in to such an elitist technocracy that, that is seriously "the standard"? Having said that my opinion echoes that of the MD I referenced several posts above.
5 hours ago, Curious1997 said:
Here's a fundamental question of why some people won't take the vaccine.
They are generally in the category of believers in God or are creationists etc and can be given all the evidence in the world BUT cannot afford to believe or change their minds, because it would mean changing their nature and giving up on their fundamentals of religion or a similar faith based philosophy, whereas vaccinated people are evidenced based AND SIGNIFICANTLY not religiously inclined or creationists etc, BUT if they were given EVIDENCE of a God or that creationist theory was true, THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY change their minds! Because they are fact driven. Evidence and truth is their fundamental nature!
Someone like Trump can't fool them or a Televangelists couldn't lead them astray! They don't have faith in anything except facts and evidence! They are realistic!
Who do you think gets disappointed more? People who are analytical and believe in researching their interests for more predictable outcomes or those who trust that an unknown all seeing, all powerful entity will protect them?
I believe there are complex reasons for sincerely held beliefs both on the "right and left" neither side is superior and both are worthy of respect.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
Have we come to the point where in order to have a thought that is different or divergent that it must first be published in a peer reviewed journal? Have we evolved in to such an elitist technocracy that, that is seriously "the standard"? Having said that my opinion echoes that of the MD I referenced several posts above.
So the short answer is no, you can't link to a scientific discussion of your hypothesis in a credible journal.
Apparently we've "evolved" to the place where any opinion should be "respected" regardless of lacking factual basis, evidentiary foundation or scientific rigor, is that your standard?
Have we come to the point where in order to have a thought that is different or divergent that it must first be published in a peer reviewed journal? Have we evolved in to such an elitist technocracy that, that is seriously "the standard"? Having said that my opinion echoes that of the MD I referenced several posts above.
I believe there are complex reasons for sincerely held beliefs both on the "right and left" neither side is superior and both are worthy of respect.
I really don't think you understood what I said?
The post was about a group subscribing to facts and evidence and another to faith and conjecture.
It wasn't about disrespect or superiority.
I clearly stated that if vaxxers were convinced through evidence and facts that there was a God or concrete evidence of creationism, they would immediately convert after justifying a reason for worshipping, which I doubt wholeheartedly, since any such being wouldn't be that insecure as to require affirmation.
I hope you appreciate the catalog of patronizing rhetoric displayed here ?.
So the short answer is no, you can't link to a scientific discussion of your hypothesis in a credible journal.
Apparently we've "evolved" to the place where any opinion should be "respected" regardless of lacking factual basis, evidentiary foundation or scientific rigor, is that your standard?
Again here is the article upon which "my" hypothesis rests https://noorchashm.medium.com/the-safest-way-to-get-your-covid-19-vaccine-screenb4vaccine-d8a9b0bb7cbd . In order to ascertain if there is validity to this perspective we would need to do a prospective cohort analysis such as I have suggested. When RN's who currently decline vaccination eventually get vaccinated (as many will inevitably choose or be forced to do so) it should be possible to determine is more of those who have high antibody titers or active infection display signs and symptoms of greater side effects than those who do not. Are you not finding that many off your clients and associates who get vaccinated display significant side effects? Of the hundred or so clients that I have spoken to who have been vaccinated at least 30% indicate having to miss at least a day from work for things like lethargy, and arm pain. Obviously, not scientific but if anything given that the average age of my client base is under 35 I would possibly expect less health issues than older clients.
The post was about a group subscribing to facts and evidence and another to faith and conjecture.
It wasn't about disrespect or superiority.
I clearly stated that if vaxxers were convinced through evidence and facts that there was a God or concrete evidence of creationism, they would immediately convert after justifying a reason for worshipping, which I doubt wholeheartedly, since any such being wouldn't be that insecure as to require affirmation.
I hope you appreciate the catalog of patronizing rhetoric displayed here ?.
To me it is about the point that freedom of choice about what you take in and do not take into your body. I do in fact believe that the vaccine is safe and effective for most people. However, I would die for the right to decline the vaccine. In the same way that I would have preferred a 911 style attack in every single major American city over the crushing Patriot Act which stripped us of even more privacy rights. Either you consider liberty to be more precious than life itself or you don't . Even if Covid rose to the mortality level of Ebola Zaire (greater than 70%)or Middle Age Bubonic Plague (30 to 50%) I would still oppose mandatory vaccination although in that case I doubt you would have many people decline.
Are you not finding that many off your clients and associates who get vaccinated display significant side effects? Of the hundred or so clients that I have spoken to who have been vaccinated at least 30% indicate having to miss at least a day from work for things like lethargy, and arm pain. Obviously, not scientific but if anything given that the average age of my client base is under 35 I would possibly expect less health issues than older clients.
Side effects like fatigue, muscle aches, fever etc. aren’t ”health issues”. They’re a sign that a person’s immune system is responding to the vaccine. So you feel a bit under the weather for a day or two, but really it’s a good thing.
Our immune systems tend to become weaker as we age so I would expect more pronounced side effects in younger people. So it doesn’t come as a surprise to me that your young patients had these reactions.
The phase 3 trials that I’ve looked at, all reported relatively high rates of common vaccine-related side effects. And they happened at a greater rate in the young than the elderly. I don’t think it’s surprising that many people miss a day of work, especially now when we really shouldn’t be going to work when we have symptoms that could be signs of an infection. Sure, it is likely just vaccine side effects but it could be you’re coming down with a cold or Covid. So you stay home and miss a days work.
toomuchbaloney
16,038 Posts
When a bunch of people decide to refuse vaccination based upon fear mongering, misinformation and political rhetoric how would you propose to convince those poorly informed people of safety or efficacy? Those same people were told for 4 years that they shouldn't trust the government or the people who work in government agencies as a lifetime profession...they were convinced by a liar and conman that some deep state conspiracy was a huge problem for the federal government. Of course, that was all a deflection and projection designed to take the scrutiny of off the corrupt incompetence of the entire administration of grifters and charlatans.
Are you recommending deprogramming for those cult members who refuse vaccination because a corrupt and impeached political figure convinced them that covid is all based in some devious plot? As a mental health professional how would you recommend that the country go about correcting belligerently ignorant vaccine refusal? How do you convince people that won't accept facts, evidence or science preferring to let fear or partisan political feelings decide for them?