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.
14 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
With all due respect do you truly not understand my point? With most required vaccinations (even for nursing school) you had the option of either demonstrating previous vaccination via records or having titers drawn to demonstrate that you had resistance. Why would a similar option not be allowed for Covid? You seem to support requiring vaccination even if you have been previously infected for a vaccine that is still only authorized for emergency use. You have not problems requiring students (none of whom are even in health care) to be required to have vaccinations. Why stop there? With your line of reasoning the government should be able to require proof of vaccination to enter a store, cross state lines, leave your house? What line will you endorse drawing and on what basis will you say "enough" (if there indeed is such a line). Can you not see that such an attitude is a short road to a Chinese like Orwellian nightmare?
Perhaps your emotional response and anxiety are making you jump to conclusions and get excited about things that are actually not facts in evidence just yet. Why are you so alarmed about schools requiring vaccines? That's been a thing for your entire life.
I support the public health recommendations, you should try that...they have scientists who have devoted their professional lives to public health expertise.
As far as the government requiring proof of vaccination...that's nonsense...private business and universities are not the government. Hyperbole is a terrible argument but it stands in when there's an absence of an actual argument. You keep proving that.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
19 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
My school offered the option of either showing proof of vaccination OR titers. Also we had the option to "opt out" on the basis of a religious statement. No hospital that I have ever worked at required vaccinations. HCA did require that you either receive that influenza vaccine or wear a mask during flu season. Even the ANA also says the following : ANA strongly recommends that registered nurses be vaccinated against COVID-19. However, we recognize that without a well-established safety profile, the risk benefit analysis could be such that nurses choose not to be vaccinated. We do not believe nurses should be retaliated against if they do not choose to be vaccinated.
LOL
The problem is that the antivaxxers feel like having to wear a mask rather than vaccinate is a retaliation for not vaccinating. It's all about feelings when the science and facts aren't on your side and to hear them talk they are all being victimized. Forced against their will, perhaps.
Perhaps your emotional response and anxiety are making you jump to conclusions and get excited about things that are actually not facts in evidence just yet. Why are you so alarmed about schools requiring vaccines? That's been a thing for your entire life.
I support the public health recommendations, you should try that...they have scientists who have devoted their professional lives to public health expertise.
As far as the government requiring proof of vaccination...that's nonsense...private business and universities are not the government. Hyperbole is a terrible argument but it stands in when there's an absence of an actual argument. You keep proving that.
These are public institutions not private. You place trust in the same experts who very well may have created this virus via so called "gain of function" research and then oversaw as it was accidently (or deliberately released) from the Wuhan lab. Your trust is misplaced in my opinion.
The problem is that the antivaxxers feel like having to wear a mask rather than vaccinate is a retaliation for not vaccinating. It's all about feelings when the science and facts aren't on your side and to hear them talk they are all being victimized. Forced against their will, perhaps.
I had no problem with the OPTION to get vaccinated for the flu or to wear a
mask. An OPTION was offered for a vaccine that was approved and had a long track record (influenza). However, many hospitals are saying that the covid vaccine is MANDATORY with or without a mask on a vaccine that is only authorized under emergency use. Are you unwilling or incapable of seeing that distinction?
Also using the term "the problem with you antivaxers" would be tantamount to someone like me saying "the problem with you pro choice people". It is neither accurate (I am not anti vax in general am anti vaccination choice on a vaccination with many likely adverse events and that is only authorized under emergency use) and it is insulting.
You aren't being forced to get another job, you just don't want to fulfill the employment requirements of the employer.
Now all of a sudden you want to start litigating a proof of immunity and how health employers do that and they long have. If you don't want the varicella vaccine or the Hep B vaccine and want to work with vulnerable populations, you'd be required to show an adequate titer. It seems odd that you don't know this already.
Yeah, if your student patients aren't willing to vaccinate then, yeah they might have to choose a campus that doesn't care about the covid risk for the students or community. The question is will they be encouraged by you, their health professional to vaccinate...seems dubious that they would get that advice. Since your "arguments" are apparently also for them I wonder how you counsel on vaccination during a pandemic.
I am a mental health provider and do not give advice on vaccination it is outside my scope of practice.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
19 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
These are public institutions not private. You place trust in the same experts who very well may have created this virus via so called "gain of function" research and then oversaw as it was accidently (or deliberately released) from the Wuhan lab. Your trust is misplaced in my opinion.
You are accusing me of following the Chinese public health recommendations? Or are you making some additional wild speculations about Dr Fauci, whom you have previously attempted to disparage? Or maybe explain what those words meant.
Fortunately for me, you've already demonstrated that your analysis and judgement are deeply flawed as related to the public health recommendations, the vaccines, and what the government forcing people to vaccinate might look like in the real world. Your opinion of my trust is similarly challenged.
You are accusing me of following the Chinese public health recommendations? Or are you making some additional wild speculations about Dr Fauci, whom you have previously attempted to disparage? Or maybe explain what those words meant.
Fortunately for me, you've already demonstrated that your analysis and judgement are deeply flawed as related to the public health recommendations, the vaccines, and what the government forcing people to vaccinate might look like in the real world. Your opinion of my trust is similarly challenged.
Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), wrote the voluntary moratorium on gain-of-function research should be lifted due to the information that might be learned from these experiments.
'In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?' he wrote at the time.
'Scientists working in this field might say - as indeed I have said - that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.'
Just a month or so ago the Wuhan "escape theory" was considered "fake news" and censored by facebook. Now it is mainstream.
You feel that we should be forced to take an unproven vaccine that may make the emergence of new dangerous variants even more likely and which does not seem to create low viral loads of these variants of concern according to recent analysis https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/fully-vaccinated-people-catch-covid-variants-may-pass-virus/ . How fitting it would be if the "early adopters" of these vaccines turned out to be the primary vectors of increased pathogenesis.
I am not trying to convince you of anything other than "we" who choose to not partake of this experimental vaccine and that we have the right to decline without fear of loss of our jobs, or educational opportunities. The only thing I ask is the ability to respectfully disagree. You have your perspective and I have mine.
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
On May 11th, Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci, had quite a heated exchange about the funding of gain of function research at the Wuhan Virology lab. I was watching this exchange on CSPAN --just 7 mins, with Dr. Fauci vigorous response below.
...WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU ARE ENTIRELY INCORRECT THAT THE NIH HAS NOT EVER AND DOES NOT NOW FUND GAIN OF FUNCTION RESEARCH IN THAT INSTITUTE. WE DO NOT FUND -- Dr. BARRETT DOES NOT DO THIS RESEARCH AND IF IT IS, IT IS ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES AND IS BEING CONDUCTED IN NORTH CAROLINA. ....
...IT IS NOT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRANTS AND THE PROGRESS REPORT, IT IS NOT GAIN OF FUNCTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE TREAT THAT. WE DO NOT SEND MONEY TO THAT INSTITUTE. .....
Its well known that the COVID19 vaccines are not 100% effective, but pretty high > 90% for Moderna and Pfizer, ~ 70% for J+J --thusly chance for being exposed to cOVID and developing infection.
Dr Roychoudhury said the finding of high viral loads showed that it was important to monitor breakthrough cases and highlighted the importance of continuing self-isolation.
She added that monitoring breakthrough cases would help vaccine manufacturers who are currently looking at booster shots, saying: "It can help us identify a potential redesign of the booster shots and improve them."
However, Dr Roychoudhury said the findings of her study did not indicate that the current vaccines were not effective.
"A lot of the antibody responses are pretty broad. The vaccines are not designed to be super specific so they will be able to target the variants," she said. She added that, as more people are vaccinated, the number of vaccination breakthrough cases is likely to come down as infection levels reduce in the wider population.
On May 11th, Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci, had quite a heated exchange about the funding of gain of function research at the Wuhan Virology lab. I was watching this exchange on CSPAN --just 7 mins, with Dr. Fauci vigorous response below.
Its well known that the COVID19 vaccines are not 100% effective, but pretty high > 90% for Moderna and Pfizer, ~ 70% for J+J --thusly chance for being exposed to cOVID and developing infection.
Yes but the data in the above article seems to show (albeit from a data pool too small to draw definitive conclusions) that the vaccines may be selecting for the most virulent resistant strains while the unvaccinated and those with previous immunity from infection may be more prone to get (and pass on) the less virulent strains. Thus, the vaccines may be helping to support "super strains" leading the a need for endless "boosters" to combat ever more capable pathogenic strains.
Yes but the data in the above article seems to show (albeit from a data pool too small to draw definitive conclusions) that the vaccines may be selecting for the most virulent resistant strains while the unvaccinated and those with previous immunity from infection may be more prone to get (and pass on) the less virulent strains. Thus, the vaccines may be helping to support "super strains" leading the a need for endless "boosters" to combat ever more capable pathogenic strains.
Not one part of that sentence makes any sense whatsoever. I sat and looked at it and I have no idea what you are trying to prove.
My reading of the article leads me to think that people who are vaccinated are 80 - 95% protected but the (very) small number of people who catch the virus after vaccination are a) catching a milder form of the disease (requiring no or little hospitalization) and b) they are catching a more virulent variation.
"The study showed that all 20 were infected with variants of concern that have been driving second waves of Covid in many parts of the world"
"None of the 20 patients studied were hospitalised"
So I would think that that disproves your thinking as it seems, to me anyway, that it shows that vaccines are good at what they do.
toomuchbaloney
16,046 Posts
Perhaps your emotional response and anxiety are making you jump to conclusions and get excited about things that are actually not facts in evidence just yet. Why are you so alarmed about schools requiring vaccines? That's been a thing for your entire life.
I support the public health recommendations, you should try that...they have scientists who have devoted their professional lives to public health expertise.
As far as the government requiring proof of vaccination...that's nonsense...private business and universities are not the government. Hyperbole is a terrible argument but it stands in when there's an absence of an actual argument. You keep proving that.