I remember being taught in nursing school the rights of medication administration -
Right patient
Right medication
Right dose
Right route
Right time
Right documentation
Right situation
Right place
RIGHT TO REFUSE.
I also remember my nursing instructor stressing how important number 9 is and that we as nurses have a duty to ensure that the right to refuse any medical care or medication is honored and upheld. To advocate for our patients and protect them. Protect them from what you may ask? To protect them from other medical professionals and “people” who think they can bully, manipulate, control and dominate any patient to force a medication, procedure or any type of medical care.
And wouldn’t you know that this RIGHT to refuse has been what I have had to defend more than anything? As an RN of more than a decade, I will forever support the right to choose and also the right to REFUSE any form of medical care. I can’t believe anyone feels that mandates of any form of medicine or medical practice or procedure is acceptable. Even more shocked that some nurses and NURSE LEADERS feel this is acceptable after a career of fighting for, defending and advocating for our patients rights.
Forced healthcare is NOT healthcare and I stand for the freedom this country was founded on. I have stood for my patients right to choose. And now that nurses and other healthcare workers rights are being threatened, I stand for their right to choose as well. COERCION is not CONSENT.
PS. How did you manage to avoid nursing school without getting a vaccine of one sort or another?
I have come to believe several respondents here are not nurses or any health care invested individual. I don't know why there are large groups (or single members) flooding AN, facebook, and my local newspapers (wherever this is an audience) arguing against the vaccination. Most of the strident writers do not show any substantial argument (only try to tear down a pro-vaccination argument). These non-vacc posters are dismissive of any factual discussion and often attack the pro-writer. Vocabularies evidenced in those non-vaccination writers are limited as would be someone using newly explored English as a second language; a bot language; or a limited education/ability to understand scientific evidenced materials (for example stating masks don't work, despite very current studies that dispute this).
I grew up in the 60s, saw/heard agitators in Chicagoduring the Democratic National Convention. Those were actual professional agitators. The type I see here, on FB, and in the newspaper Letters to the Editor section are rank amateurs.
PS. How did you manage to avoid nursing school without getting a vaccine of one sort or another?
I received my ADN in 2009. I did not have any vaccines during the time I was in school. Prior to being accepted into the program I had to show proof of MMR and Tdap. I also needed to have a PPD done.
I never said I was "anti-vax", I was speaking strictly about the mandate.
Our patients have a right to choose not to get infected by easily preventable diseases from their medical staff
Unfortunately, vaccination doesn't guarantee against the spread if that's your angle. Right now the best thing it's doing is protecting the inoculated.
Why is there always the choice between ‘vaccinated’ or ‘unvaccinated’? How about someone who has been infected and now has natural immunity? Getting vaccinated at that point would not be necessary.
Why is there always the choice between ‘vaccinated’ or ‘unvaccinated’? How about someone who has been infected and now has natural immunity? Getting vaccinated at that point would not be necessary.
I've made the case about that. Despite statistics showing reinfection is rare, and a variety of studies that echo that, many vehemently argue even the previously infected get the vaccine and not be exempt from the mandates
Unfortunately, vaccination doesn't guarantee against the spread if that's your angle. Right now the best thing it's doing is protecting the inoculated.
The vast majority of evidence shows that it dos reduce the potential for spread, although you're right it doesn't "guarantee" that they have zero potential to spread the virus.
I've asked you this before and I don't think you've answered, people still die jumping out of planes wearing a parachute, so does that mean it's not beneficial to skydive using a parachute compared to without?
The vast majority of evidence shows that it dos reduce the potential for spread, although you're right it doesn't "guarantee" that they have zero potential to spread the virus.
I've asked you this before and I don't think you've answered, people still die jumping out of planes wearing a parachute, so does that mean it's not beneficial to skydive using a parachute compared to without?
Why is there always the choice between ‘vaccinated’ or ‘unvaccinated’? How about someone who has been infected and now has natural immunity? Getting vaccinated at that point would not be necessary.
5 minutes ago, jive turkey said:
I've made the case about that. Despite statistics showing reinfection is rare, and a variety of studies that echo that, many vehemently argue even the previously infected get the vaccine and not be exempt from the mandates
Natural immunity is not permanent, available evidence shows it to be relatively short lived, with one study showing mean time to reinfection of those previously infected of only 4 months.
If there was an established time that it was reasonably safe (to themselves and others) after infection for someone to delay vaccination then that might be worth considering, but generally what the evidence supports is that previous infection does not indefinitely replace vaccination.
The vast majority of evidence shows that it dos reduce the potential for spread, although you're right it doesn't "guarantee" that they have zero potential to spread the virus.
I've asked you this before and I don't think you've answered, people still die jumping out of planes wearing a parachute, so does that mean it's not beneficial to skydive using a parachute compared to without?
The problem with your question is you equate the vaccine to the parachute and natural immunity as nothing. You're wrong about that.
I've asked YOU before, show me how many reinfected people are being hospitalized and dying. Still haven't seen anything......
21 minutes ago, MunoRN said:
Natural immunity is not permanent, available evidence shows it to be relatively short lived, with one study showing mean time to reinfection of those previously infected of only 4 months.
There is no conclusive evidence of how long natural immunity lasts. It isn't going to be the same for everybody. The same is true regarding immunity from vaccination. It ain't permanent either as far as we know. You already know people are having break through infections after vaccination, and even the CDC has informed us the viral loads of those with breakthrough infections may be similar to the unvaccinated.
It is perplexing how dismissive you are about natural immunity. What's your reason for that?
Natural immunity is not permanent, available evidence shows it to be relatively short lived, with one study showing mean time to reinfection of those previously infected of only 4 months.
If there was an established time that it was reasonably safe (to themselves and others) after infection for someone to delay vaccination then that might be worth considering, but generally what the evidence supports is that previous infection does not indefinitely replace vaccination.
Evidence also shows that the vaccinated do not have permanent immunity, hence the breakthrough cases and the need for booster shots.
Evidence also shows that the vaccinated do not have permanent immunity, hence the breakthrough cases and the need for booster shots.
Correct, neither has permanent immunity, which is why I disagreed with your claim that vaccination "would not be necessary" for someone who was previously infected.
28 minutes ago, jive turkey said:
The problem with your question is you equate the vaccine to the parachute and natural immunity as nothing. You're wrong about that.
I've asked YOU before, show me how many reinfected people are being hospitalized and dying. Still haven't seen anything......
There is no conclusive evidence of how long natural immunity lasts. It isn't going to be the same for everybody. The same is true regarding immunity from vaccination. It ain't permanent either as far as we know. You already know people are having break through infections after vaccination, and even the CDC has informed us the viral loads of those with breakthrough infections may be similar to the unvaccinated.
It is perplexing how dismissive you are about natural immunity. What's your reason for that?
Which brings up another question I've asked you before but hasn't been answered, when are you saying that the previously infected should be vaccinated, what's the time frame after previous infection?
Particularly with new variants, we do know that previous infection offers more variable, and generally inferior protection compared to vaccination.
londonflo
3,002 Posts
I have come to believe several respondents here are not nurses or any health care invested individual. I don't know why there are large groups (or single members) flooding AN, facebook, and my local newspapers (wherever this is an audience) arguing against the vaccination. Most of the strident writers do not show any substantial argument (only try to tear down a pro-vaccination argument). These non-vacc posters are dismissive of any factual discussion and often attack the pro-writer. Vocabularies evidenced in those non-vaccination writers are limited as would be someone using newly explored English as a second language; a bot language; or a limited education/ability to understand scientific evidenced materials (for example stating masks don't work, despite very current studies that dispute this).
I grew up in the 60s, saw/heard agitators in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. Those were actual professional agitators. The type I see here, on FB, and in the newspaper Letters to the Editor section are rank amateurs.