If healthcare professionals refuse the vaccine then why should the rest of us be vaccinated?
This behaviour sends an appalling message to the public.
Frankly, there should be serious consequences for the staff involved.
This behaviour sends an appalling message to the public.
Frankly, there should be serious consequences for the staff involved.
1. Some health workers might have different views, including very wrong ones on any kind of treatment. What does that change?
2. It does not. Whistle blowers always existed and in this case they are just wrong. You cannot control the mind of the whole medical industry.
3. I would also disagree with this one even if I don't agree with the staff that rejected the vaccines. They have their right to having their own opinion and that's good. I am free to disagree and I will.
Your comment illustrates what's wrong in the US and the West in general in a situation like this and has been made painfully visible this year even before this: individualism taken to the extreme, no consideration at all for the common good, no political courage to act in the common good above individuals.
The vaccine given to people has received approval from the relevant health authorities and is being rolled out as a matter of national priority in all countries. It is the best shot we have at ending this pandemic. Medical staff are at high risk and they are also critical, and people obviously look up to them on healthcare issues.
Therefore, medical staff have a duty (a concept that seems completely forgotten these days) to get vaccinated when called both for themselves, their patients, and as example to the public at large.
If that goes against their personal beliefs then they are in the wrong profession and should quit or be fired.
I find comments are made much better (are more likely to influence someone’s thoughts) by just deleting these parts.
Try to communicate out of a desire to learn first, inform second, and just skip the shaming.
I believe I made a point that is relevant and that has also been discussed in the media this year. A condescending attempt to dismiss it is poor form.
Lines like this make some people prone to just dismissing what you have to say because you come off as anti-US, anti-Western, pro-communist, or whatever they perceive that line to imply. It also looks like you are virtue-signaling to people who already share your point of view.
Something I often hear at work about me that is valid here is "People rarely disagree with what you say but they disagree strongly with HOW you say it".
We both may wish people didn't care about the "how" if the "what" is correct but that's not the world we live in.
That being said certain people like the pregnant woman that feels we don't have enough data if there are any I'll effects on that particular group seems relatively valid.
Is there any previous vaccine that this has ever been true of? If it was wouldn’t that enable the disease to continue to be rampant among groups who were not vaccinated?
> The science behind this seeming contradiction is relatively straightforward. Vaccines like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s are injected into deep muscle and provide so-called systemic immunity. But they may still leave areas, particularly nasal mucous passages, where the virus is relatively free to multiply. Even without making the host sick, that virus can then potentially spread through coughing or sneezing, just as it is spread by a person with a full-blown coronavirus infection.
Because I don't base my health decisions on what nurses do or do not believe, for example.
My mother took a chemistry class for her permanent teaching certificate. It was a really good chemistry class and book--the book taught 6th grader me so much chemistry that I never took another chemistry class in my entire engineering education (electrical engineer--so not so critical).
The class had a bunch of nurses finishing up their training. The nurses complained bitterly about how hard the class was and that it was the blocker for graduating--in spite of it practically avoiding all math.
Cogitate on that--20+ year old college students couldn't understand a book that a 6th grader could.
Just because someone is a nurse doesn't automatically make them an authority on health decisions.
> Frankly, there should be serious consequences for the staff involved.
That will likely happen after Covid. Right now, everywhere is so short of staff that nobody is going to risk offending a qualified nurse and having them walk.
Presumably, you would want to be vaccinated because it provides protection from contracting COVID. If you and anyone who wants it can get personal immunity, why does it matter others do?
That's very obviously my point...
You don't seem to realise how damaging their behaviour is for the uptake of the vaccine in the population at large. Nor do you seem to realise that this is not only a matter of personal immunity. The more people are vaccinated the more difficult it is for the virus to spread.
I think it would be helpful to clarify if you will personally refuse to get a vaccine because some healthcare workers will not, or are you talking about other people and excluding yourself?
If the former, the position is confusing because it holds that the choice of HC workers is wrong, but still allows it to have sway over your actions. If the latter, what sets your decision making process apart from the general population.
>Nor do you seem to realise that this is not only a matter of personal immunity. The more people are vaccinated the more difficult it is for the virus to spread.
Please explain it to me. Once everyone who wants personal immunity has access to the vaccine, why does it matter if the virus spreads?