Healthcare workers should get a flu shot or lose their jobs, two health groups say

reply to post by LAinhabitant


Thanks for bringing up the fact that we who work in healthcare are actually putting ourselves and our families at risk just by doing our jobs. It's something that I think about often. But I do it anyway, because I'm helping people.

Fact is, I NEVER get sick. I keep myself in top physical condition and nutrition and I never catch the colds and things that my co-workers catch. Just because some people don't want to exert the effort to keep their immune systems up does not mean that I have to be forced to take injections of known carcinogen/neurotoxic/crap that the lowest common denominator is being experimented on with to make them 'feel' safer.

Which brings up a good point, where is the vaccine for the common cold? That can kill an immuno-compromised patient just as quick as the rest. You better get on the horn to your gov't/pharma and get 'em cookin' up some more crap to inject you with.

There are always going to be people who think they own other people, that's why the Constitution was penned. It's under these circumstances that I understand the need for Lawyers. Your need to control others is based in FEAR. You should just come to terms with the fact that we're all temporal and nothing you try to do to other people will change that fact.

Originally posted by LAinhabitant


ANYONE ANYWHERE could pass the flu on to someone else.

The difference being, people in the hospital are there seeking treatment, which usually means their case is already fairly severe.

No one seeks medical treatment at the grocery store, the ballpark, the mall, or any place like that. As such, there is no assumption that universal precautions are being taken in those places. The hospital is a special circumstance, where EVERY employee (janitors, nurses, doctors, file clerks, EVERYONE) is expected to understand and participate in infection control. If this is too hard of a task for someone, they shouldn't be working in patient care centers. It's as simple as that.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


So you think that people that work in these places stay home when they are sick? You're delusional. People go to work sick with colds and such all the time in healthcare, same as anywhere else. Your perfect little world doesn't, and never will, exist. Stop trying to control others and mind your own.

reply to post by Tempest333


Uh, worker who doesn't give the flu shots and doesn't get vaccinated works on person with the flu. Person gets sick, and was contagious before symptoms would have caused them to miss work, infecting other people they work on and with.

Get it now? I think all teacher's should get on, too.
I'm old enough to have a smallpox vac-scar on my arm. I was given all the vaccinations as they became available. I am old enough to have gotten rubella, measles, and chicken pox, but nothing more serious.
People who mistrust vaccines should sign a waiver. Then when they get sick, we'll have new stats. It will also strenghen the overall gene pool.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

So you think that people that work in these places stay home when they are sick? You're delusional. People go to work sick with colds and such all the time in healthcare, same as anywhere else. Your perfect little world doesn't, and never will, exist. Stop trying to control others and mind your own.

Under universal precautions, if a health care worker is actively infectious, they are either supposed to wear PPE masks or not come into work. Those are the medical standards of universal precautions.

Also, you're missing the point (again) about the other places I mentioned. Those locations are not supposed to practice universal precautions, and there is no assumption that they are sanitary or infection free. In the hospital, there is an active infection control program and infection control officers/agents. That's the difference.

reply to post by Blanca Rose

Given that scenario, why wouldn't you ask yourself why aren't these knowledgable health care professionals getting the vaccine? Could it be because there is mercury and other additive's in the vaccine? Or worse? Could it be that they saw through the pharma-industral scam? Or (let me adjust my tin sombrero) is there nano technology inside the vaccine? Who would you rather trust, a nurse or the ministry of propaganda?

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by Tempest333

 

Uh, worker who doesn't give the flu shots and doesn't get vaccinated works on person with the flu. Person gets sick, and was contagious before symptoms would have caused them to miss work, infecting other people they work on and with.

Get it now? I think all teacher's should get on, too.
I'm old enough to have a smallpox vac-scar on my arm. I was given all the vaccinations as they became available. I am old enough to have gotten rubella, measles, and chicken pox, but nothing more serious.
People who mistrust vaccines should sign a waiver. Then when they get sick, we'll have new stats. It will also strenghen the overall gene pool.

I've had the same childhood excuses-to-stay-home-from-school that you had. Now the vaccinations for those are causing children to become autistic, in my opinion. Better to stay home from school, and even get shingles when old.

I found that nurses are very rigid on the subject of vaccinations. They say one must take the shots. But no doctor ever told us that. So we go with the medical opinion we get from doctors.

We're not in the health care field by the way.

Originally posted by oniongrass
I've had the same childhood excuses-to-stay-home-from-school that you had. Now the vaccinations for those are causing children to become autistic, in my opinion.

Do you have any science to back this up, or just your opinion? Do date, I've seen absolutely ZERO scientific studies, both in American and Russian journals (whose publication standards tend to be a bit more..."lax") that conclusively tie vaccines to autism. There was one Lancet study that was pointed out as erroneous from the date it was published (and was eventually pulled by the co-authors and the journal), and there are several books written by snake-oil salesmen and Jenny McCarthy.

Under universal precautions, if a health care worker is actively infectious, they are either supposed to wear PPE masks or not come into work. Those are the medical standards of universal precautions.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Yep, and totally unenforceable in the real world. People don't have to admit to having an illness, and generally it's left to their discretion to use PPE. You're not living in the real world.

Life is terminal and you will never make it otherwise. Like I said, be satisfied with minding yourself and stop trying to tell other people what shots to get.

If you can expect everyone in a hospital to be a guinea pig then you'll just move on to those public areas you mentioned using the same arguments. Then they'll inject everyone with whatever the hell they want because it'll be a gov't 'right' to do so. "Protecting the Public" by injecting them with Lord knows what. It is a brave new world you envision isn't it?

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Yep, and totally unenforceable in the real world. People don't have to admit to having an illness, and generally it's left to their discretion to use PPE. You're not living in the real world.

PPE is not "left to their discretion". I've seen more than one employee written up and penalized for improper use of PPE, especially when dealing with TB patients.

Why on earth would you assume PPE an universal precautions are optional?

Life is terminal and you will never make it otherwise. Like I said, be satisfied with minding yourself and stop trying to tell other people what shots to get.

My job, as a physician, requires me to "mind others" for infection. Why would I let a nurse with an obvious cold into a room with a severly immunocompromised patient? Should I just "mind myself" and allow her to work on that patient? That's ludicrous and irresponsible.

Even a BASIC understanding of epidemiology would tell you that you can't just "mind yourself" in a health care setting. You have to constantly monitor your patient and their environment while in the hospital. I've kicked nurses out of patient rooms on several occasions for various infectionr-related reasons (open cuts, active infection, not washing hands despite SEVERAL orders to do so). The infection control staff and adiminstration backs these decisions 100%.

If you can expect everyone in a hospital to be a guinea pig then you'll just move on to those public areas you mentioned using the same arguments.

Who said anything about "guinea pigs"? That suggests I'm making them victims of an experiment. No one is suggesting anything of the sort. Flu vaccine is proven to reduce the number of nosocomial infection.

Then they'll inject everyone with whatever the hell they want because it'll be a gov't 'right' to do so. "Protecting the Public" by injecting them with Lord knows what. It is a brave new world you envision isn't it?

That's an awfully giant logical leap you've made there, and it explains a lot of the questions I had about you. Please explain the steps in between these two events for me, so I can fully understand your worldview.

1) Private (not public) health centers require patient-contact employees to receive prophylactic flu vaccine based on empirical evidence of reducing nosocomial infection.

2) ???

3) The government straps people down and jabs them, claiming it is a "right" of the government, despite no precedent, no Consitutional authority, no means of rounding up the public, insufficient medical staff to do so, and an insufficient means of producing such large quantities of vaccine.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by oniongrass
I've had the same childhood excuses-to-stay-home-from-school that you had. Now the vaccinations for those are causing children to become autistic, in my opinion.

Do you have any science to back this up, or just your opinion? Do date, I've seen absolutely ZERO scientific studies, both in American and Russian journals (whose publication standards tend to be a bit more..."lax") that conclusively tie vaccines to autism. There was one Lancet study that was pointed out as erroneous from the date it was published (and was eventually pulled by the co-authors and the journal), and there are several books written by snake-oil salesmen and Jenny McCarthy.

I have my own observations and what I've heard from people I know. I have what I've read from many on the internet, many stories. It would be difficult to go back and un-vaccinate the child to seen if he becomes unautistic, so asking for "conclusive" evidence is asking too much. I think I observed scientifically. I am trained scientifically.

I don't know the literature, either in English or Russian. But I'm troubled by your use of the word "conclusively". Are you ignoring lots of soft evidence and calling things "unscientific" because they don't appear in refereed journals?

Since you're going to demand "conclusive" proof, so will I. When you show conclusively that (1) vaccines are harmless and (2) each vaccination you propose is effective in immunizing against what it's supposed to, then I'll consider taking them.

Since this year's flu vaccine is based on last year's flu, you'll have a hard time with (2) and I'm sure you won't be able to do (1) but thanks for playing.

Originally posted by oniongrass
Since this year's flu vaccine is based on last year's flu, you'll have a hard time with (2) and I'm sure you won't be able to do (1) but thanks for playing.

The implication of your sentence is that the immunization that is released this fall will only protect you against a past flu is wrong. Don't know where you get that idea.

The seasonal flu vaccine protects against three influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. The 2010-2011 flu vaccine will protect against 2009 H1N1, and two other influenza viruses (an H3N2 virus and an influenza B virus). The viruses in the vaccine change each year based on international surveillance and scientists' estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year. About 2 weeks after vaccination, antibodies that provide protection against influenza virus infection develop in the body.

(Source: www.cdc.gov...)

Because not everyone was able to get the H1N1 vaccine last year due to shortages, it's being included in this year's. Otherwise, it's same as every year -- they determine what the most likely strains of flu will be, and that's what the vaccine is based on, not on what last year's flu was.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by oniongrass
Since this year's flu vaccine is based on last year's flu, you'll have a hard time with (2) and I'm sure you won't be able to do (1) but thanks for playing.

The implication of your sentence is that the immunization that is released this fall will only protect you against a past flu is wrong. Don't know where you get that idea.
...

Well I get the idea because there have been a lot of whiffs in the predictions in recent years.

But that's not all; you left out the context from my post. Even reasonable assurance is not enough in this case. I'm going by scientific standards as defined in this thread. I require that it be shown conclusively that the vaccine will protect against this year's flu. That's the standard that the guy I was answering, a physician no less, was proposing, so that is the standard I demand. There's no doubt that this year's vaccine misses that.

There must be something pretty interesting in that H1N1 vaccination for them to be giving it again even after that infection has more or less vanished. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Oh, and there's also the requirement that I be shown conclusively that this year's vaccine will not harm me. Don't ask me how that could be shown, but that's the standard I was given, so that's the standard I expect. After all, the default should be not to mess with my body or the bodies of my children.

Originally posted by oniongrass
I have my own observations and what I've heard from people I know. I have what I've read from many on the internet, many stories.

So you have anecdotes. Not data, not studies, not even clinical observations...just stories.

You know, a long time ago, there were people who SWORE the black plague was caused by a curse put on a city by a witch. People even "saw" her doing it. What makes that story any different than your own?

It would be difficult to go back and un-vaccinate the child to seen if he becomes unautistic, so asking for "conclusive" evidence is asking too much. I think I observed scientifically. I am trained scientifically.

If you were truly "trained scientifically", you would realize that I'm not asking you to "unvaccinate" anyone. A truly "scientifically trained" individual would realize that you would simply need to compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations for autism, such as this study and this study, both of which examined large populations of both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and concluded (through DATA, not STORIES) that there was no difference in rate of autism in the two groups.

I don't know the literature, either in English or Russian. But I'm troubled by your use of the word "conclusively". Are you ignoring lots of soft evidence and calling things "unscientific" because they don't appear in refereed journals?

No, I'm calling things "unscientific" that offer no plausible explanation. If you want to claim that vaccines cause autism, fine. Show me why. If you can't show me WHY they cause autism, WHY do you think they do in the first place? It's completely circular logic: "Why do vaccines cause autism? Because autism is caused by vaccines".

Since you're going to demand "conclusive" proof, so will I. When you show conclusively that (1) vaccines are harmless and (2) each vaccination you propose is effective in immunizing against what it's supposed to, then I'll consider taking them.

Read the studies I posted above, and check my post history in other vaccine threads. I've posted (and re-posted) and exhaustively long and well-supported post showing conclusively that vaccines are effective, safe, and worthwhile.

In fact, rather than make you search for it (since you'll probably claim you can't find it or decry me for making you dig a bit), here's the link: Efficacy and safety of various vaccines

Since this year's flu vaccine is based on last year's flu, you'll have a hard time with (2) and I'm sure you won't be able to do (1) but thanks for playing.

Please go back to wherever you were "scientifically trained" (though I'm beginning to doubt this, as you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of immunization) and read up on influenza vaccines. The only thing changes from year to year is the specific antigen, not the composition of the vaccine or it's adjuvants.

Having said that, let's look at the two criteria you asked about, specifically:

(1) Seasonal flu vaccine is harmless:
High-dose flu vaccien safety study in elderly
Increased safety in flu vaccine causes GBS in less than 1/1,000,000
Safety of H5N1 vaccine in children


(2) Seasonal flu vaccine is effective:
Flu vaccine improves immunity in children 6 - 59 months old
Substantial immune benefits in 65 years+ and high risk gruops
Flu vaccine improves immunity and decreases cardiac events in elderly
COPD patients show benefit from flu vaccine
Intranasal flu vaccine shows high efficacy

I've presented studies for several variations of flu vaccine, several age groups, and several risk groups. All of them show the vaccine to be effective and safe.

Now, can you show me any of your studies that prove otherwise?

Originally posted by Mirthful Me


As a healthcare worker myself, I have no problem with this. flu shots, Hepatitis B, TB tests, HIV... It's for my as well the patients safety to have these immunizations current.

On another note, what do people think is going to happen once Obamacare comes into effect? The easiest way to contain costs is prevention. I can here the cries of unconstitutional now.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If that is the job you choose to have and your masters tell you that you have to get these shots, they have not spoken wrong. You willfully joined their team and became one of their human resources. Of course it is okay for them to make it mandatory.

However, the second anyone attempts to tell me, as someone who is not involved with health-care, that I must get a shot, they will have to strap me down and taze me first. Maybe they should taze me before they strap me, because I'll go buck-wild if they don't listen to reason.



If you don't want the shots, get a new job. Pick up a guitar if there isn't one.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


The precedent is already set IF your forced immunizations ever became a reality. It doesn't matter where or how the precedent is set. You say, 'just don't work in healthcare', well many people couldn't get another job in this ecomony. Or have too much invested to just 'change jobs'. So you're telling them 'take this shot or go hungry and live on the street'. Nice.

Once you have that precedent, then you just have say a 'Level 6 Pandemic Flu like H1N1', and bingo, for public safety everyone must be immunized. After all, we've required of health care personal for some time.

As far as your enforcement of PPE. The instances you describe of violations proves my point. They happen quite often. What happens when you're not around? You simply cannot control everything. I know, it's a huge concept for someone like yourself, but try to get a grip.

One last thing. Who does your prescription pad work for?

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
The precedent is already set IF your forced immunizations ever became a reality. It doesn't matter where or how the precedent is set.

So, the precedent is set, but you don't know where or how it's set? How do you know it has been set at all?

Can you show me any instance in which the government is mandating vaccinations without any recourse?

You say, 'just don't work in healthcare', well many people couldn't get another job in this ecomony. Or have too much invested to just 'change jobs'. So you're telling them 'take this shot or go hungry and live on the street'. Nice.

I have little sympathy for someone's desire not to be vaccinated when the alternative is that they could kill a patient. Why should I allow someone to indulge their little conspiracy fantasies, and at the same time pass a fatal infection on to my SCID patient?

Once you have that precedent, then you just have say a 'Level 6 Pandemic Flu like H1N1'

, and bingo, for public safety everyone must be immunized. After all, we've required of health care personal for some time.

You've yet to show me any precedent, so this is nothing but a strawman arguement.

Next.

As far as your enforcement of PPE. The instances you describe of violations proves my point. They happen quite often. What happens when you're not around? You simply cannot control everything. I know, it's a huge concept for someone like yourself, but try to get a grip.

When I'm not around, another doctor is, or a charge nurse, or an infection control agent. You know that I'm not the only doctor in my hospital, ward, or even unit, right?

Every hospital takes infection control seriously. Having never worked in one, you don't really possess the experience necessary to comment on when/how PPE is used.

One last thing. Who does your prescription pad work for?

It works for my patients.

Why can't you make a point without attacking me or my profession? I've reported the above comment for personal attacks. Sorry.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
That's not how herd immunity works.

How appropriate that you brought up this reference. That is exactly the idea: The American Herd. Any such government mandates are all to control the herd.

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
Given that scenario, why wouldn't you ask yourself why aren't these knowledgable health care professionals getting the vaccine? Could it be ...

Quite right! I am in the health care industry and flu shots are not mandatory. Would they become as such, I would walk away on the spot.

Outside of open surgery etc, any immune compromised person is more likely to be infected with flu either in the general public or between point-of-origin and hospital bed than actually in the hospital via staff. For that reason and the controversies, potential risks and other unproven science, such seasonal vaccinations are not necessary and should not be forced.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


No it works for PharmaCorp, that's why you're upset. Of course that's all predicated on the assumption that you're even a doctor. For all anyone here knows you're a dude with a beer in his hand who got laid off from his day job. You seem to have alot of time on your hands to be on ATS all day. Nuff said.

As I said, the precedent WOULD be set IF your crazy ideas were brought to reality. What part of that do you not grasp?

Originally posted by oniongrass
There must be something pretty interesting in that H1N1 vaccination for them to be giving it again even after that infection has more or less vanished. That makes a whole lot of sense.

What was interesting about it was that, unlike the typical flu which only threatens people like me with underlying conditions and suppressed immune systems, H1N1 killed a lot of otherwise healthy, and young, people. It's a blessing that it did seem to fizzle out, or it could have been very, very bad. Preventing that from happening is why they are continuing to immunize against it.