Nurses in US fired over vaccination refusal.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The virus multiplies and spreads from your body long before symptoms state to appear or get serious enough to take the day off.

So when you go to work while having the flu there is no risk that you will spread it ?

flutered

i got the flu jab back in october, as i am in one of groups that it is a requirement for,i have never been more flu ridden, i seem to have it since the end of november, the doc asked me had i got the jab i said yes, but never again.

jh79

So would you deem a vaccination for Hep B a requirement for a health worker?

Would you allow yourself to be treated by a person who refused this vaccination?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

This link says it all imo

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/brave-nurses-lose-jobs-to-stand-on-principle-and-refuse-forced-vaccinations/[/QUOTE]

Adds nothing to the debate, no facts, figures, possible mechanisms of the so called side effects, % incidents of the adverse effects any direct links. Has a similar feel to creation science websites were whole bodies of research are ignored in favour of obscure studies that suit.

You honestly think a website like that where vague statements about nasty chemicals and super all curing organic foods should be taken seriously, surely you can see they are just a front to sell magic beans to the gullible.

While the pharma industry has its issues at least some proof of efficacy is required.

For every area of pharmaceutical / medicinal chemistry they have an issue with, they seem to have an "organic" alternative to sell via a link!

weisses

well at least nurses are 60% less likely to need treatment for the flu ... what a relief

So now we have the virus can be carried by anyone vaccinated or not
And 40% is still not immune after being vaccinated....

But hey lets sack em regardless

jh79

weisses wrote: »

well at least nurses are 60% less likely to need treatment for the flu ... what a relief

So now we have the virus can be carried by anyone vaccinated or not
And 40% is still not immune after being vaccinated....

But hey lets sack em regardless

The patient comes first, if they think it ok to risk a patient well being over some unfounded CT they are not fit to be nurses

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The patient comes first, if they think it ok to risk a patient well being over some unfounded CT they are not fit to be nurses

What is unfounded in what I said ?

enno99

Plain language summary

Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season.Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration.

Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.

Am I reading this right if the guess the right strains its only effective for 1 in 33 people

and if they dont guess its effective for 1 in 100

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So when you go to work while having the flu there is no risk that you will spread it ?

I don't work in an environment where there are a lot of people who are more susceptible to contracting a virus and suffering more from it's symptoms.

Nurses work in close contact with people like this.
Vaccines reduce the spread of the virus, just as washing your hands does.

Every argument you can cook up against vaccines of for the (pointless) rights of the nurses taking precedent over the rights of their patients you can use against washing your hands.

Like for instance: washing your hands doesn't stop the spread of viruses 100%, therefore we shouldn't bother with it, right?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Ithe (pointless) rights of the nurses

More authoritarianism I see.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More authoritarianism I see.

In a poor, hyperbolic definition of the word, sure.
In the same way you are all for stamping on the rights of patients...

So why does the nurses wanting to exercise their right to not have a vaccine for no good reason at all trump the rights of the patients to safety?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Every argument you can cook up against vaccines of for the (pointless) rights of the nurses taking precedent over the rights of their patients you can use against washing your hands.

Probably the greatest load of bollocks you have ever come up with

You still havent explained what reservations they would have against washing their hands Which is non invasive and mutually beneficial

Or shown where the potential for harm would arise from washing their hands which would lead them refuse such a request

Where vaccines are invasive and can cause harm

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Probably the greatest load of bollocks you have ever come up with

You still havent explained what reservations they would have against washing their hands Which is non invasive and mutually beneficial

Or shown where the potential for harm would arise from washing their hands which would lead them refuse such a request

Where vaccines are invasive and can cause harm

Washing your hands in chemicals is as invasive. Those chemicals can be absorbed into your skin and therefore into your body. Monitoring whether or not you wash your hands is an invasion of privacy.

Harm can come from allergies to certain chemicals in hand washes, scalding from hot water...

All of course silly arguments, but no different to the ones being made against vaccines.

No one has explained why the rights of nurses trump the rights of patients.

Brown Bomber

King Mob,

What do you make of this?

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~medmond/

Michael B. Edmond, MD, MPH, MPAis the Richard P. Wenzel Professor of Internal Medicine and Chair of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Virginia Commonwealth University. He also holds a faculty appointment in the Department of Epidemiology and Community Health and serves as the Hospital Epidemiologist for the VCU Health System.

He is a graduate of the West Virginia University School of Medicine (MD), the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (MPH), and the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Government and Public Affairs (MPA). He was a resident and chief resident in Internal Medicine at West Virginia University Hospitals. He then completed a fellowship in Infectious Diseases at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a fellowship in Hospital Epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Dr. Edmond's areas of research focus on the epidemiology of healthcare-associated infections and the public policy implications of infection control. He has published 300 papers, abstracts and book chapters, and co-moderates a blog entitled Controversies in Hospital Infection Prevention. In 2011, Dr. Edmond was named to Richmond Magazine's Top Doctors, America's Top Doctors, US News and World Report's Top Doctors, and Health Leaders Magazine's 20 People Who Make Healthcare Better.

He wrote this blog post.

More on SHEA's Flu Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers


Last week, Dan blogged about SHEA’s new position paper, which calls for annual influenza vaccination as a condition of initial and continued employment for healthcare workers (HCWs). Simply put, SHEA is recommending that HCWs without a contraindication to influenza vaccine be fired if they refuse to be vaccinated. That’s a strong stance coming from an organization that typically avoids strong stances. I’ve blogged before about why I think that mandating influenza vaccination is a bad idea, but in this posting I want to focus on the evidence behind the recommendation.

Of note, there are 3 Cochrane reviews on influenza vaccination published this year that are worth reading. If you’re not familiar with Cochrane Reviews, you can read more about them here. These reviews are generally thought of as the highest quality, most rigorous reviews of the medical literature, and the reviews are developed free of any commercial funding.

The first Cochrane review, Influenza Vaccination for Healthcare Workers Who Work with the Elderly, is most applicable to the SHEA position statement. SHEA’s position on the utility of vaccinating HCWs to prevent influenza transmission to patients is based on 4 studies in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). And of note, those 4 studies are part of the Cochrane review, which comes to the following conclusion: “We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in LTCFs.”

Another recent Cochrane review evaluated the utility of influenza vaccination of healthy adults, which presumably represents the majority of HCWs. The authors concluded: “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”

The last Cochrane review is least applicable to our current discussion, but interesting nonetheless. In reviewing the effect of influenza vaccine for the elderly, the authors conclude “The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older.”

So given the lack of rigorous evidence supporting the utility of vaccinating HCWs to prevent transmission to patients, I find it astonishing that the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology would adopt such a position. I certainly would have no problem with a position statement that strongly encourages vaccination, but to recommend that HCWs be fired for noncompliance with vaccination is over the top and undermines SHEA’s credibility. The level of compliance with any intervention to improve the quality or safety of patient care must be correlated to the strength of the evidence, and in this case, the evidence for a mandate is lacking.

As I was looking at the Cochrane reviews, I wondered aloud how the SHEA guideline writers could have come to their conclusion. My good friend and colleague, Gonzalo Bearman, quickly responded, “they were blinded by dogma.” Amen, Gonzalo! http://haicontroversies.blogspot.se/2010/09/more-on-sheas-flu-vaccine-mandate-for.html

Brown Bomber

And this, http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/physicians_oppose_mandatory_flu_vaccine_for_health_workers/

Physicians Oppose Mandatory Flu Vaccine for Health Workers
Dec 15, 2011

In letters to Colorado public health officials, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) opposes a rule requiring workers in health care facilities to have an annual influenza vaccination or lose their jobs. Workers who had a rare religious or medical exemption would be required to wear a mask in patient care areas from November through March.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

King Mob,

What do you make of this?

First I find it funny now that you are now arguing against vaccines despite what you gave out to me earlier for.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20166073

We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in LTCFs.(Long-term care facilities)

Long-term care facilities are not hospitals where people with flu will come to to get treatment and it is not about a critical care unit during a very large and serious outbreak.
So not relevant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

Refers to symptoms in healthy adults, not the spread of the virus in vulnerable people form nurses and other health care workers.
So again, not relevant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20166072

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.

Again, not a relevant topic and the paper only concludes that the evidence supporting the effectiveness of vaccinating the elderly directly is not good.

So again, why are the rights of nurses to object to vaccines for no good reason more important to the rights of many other's right to safety?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I don't work in an environment where there are a lot of people who are more susceptible to contracting a virus and suffering more from it's symptoms.

Nurses work in close contact with people like this.
Vaccines reduce the spread of the virus, just as washing your hands does.

Every argument you can cook up against vaccines of for the (pointless) rights of the nurses taking precedent over the rights of their patients you can use against washing your hands.

Like for instance: washing your hands doesn't stop the spread of viruses 100%, therefore we shouldn't bother with it, right?

Simple question i asked but no answer

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Long-term care facilities are not hospitals where people with flu will come to to get treatment and it is not about a critical care unit during a very large and serious outbreak.
So not relevant.

I suggest you do some reading up on how your immune system breaks down when you get older

Quote//
The immune system loses it's ability to fight off infections as you grow older. This increases your risk for getting sick, and may make immunizations less effective"

Do you think this statement

Evidence remains lacking that vaccinating healthcare workers prevents influenza in elderly residents in long-term care.

is still not relevant? and if so why do you think its irrelevant ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Simple question i asked but no answer

I thought my answer was clear. Yes, there is a risk of spreading the virus. But I don't work in an environment where there will be a lot of vulnerable people so that risk is negligible.
Your question is a red herring.

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you do some reading up on how your immune system breaks down when you get older

Quote//
The immune system loses it's ability to fight off infections as you grow older. This increases your risk for getting sick, and may make immunizations less effective"

Do you think this statement

Evidence remains lacking that vaccinating healthcare workers prevents influenza in elderly residents in long-term care.

is still not relevant? and if so why do you think its irrelevant ?

Because we are not talking about long term care in long term care facilities.
We are talking about a critical care ward in a hospital during a severe outbreak.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I thought my answer was clear. Yes, there is a risk of spreading the virus. But I don't work in an environment where there will be a lot of vulnerable people so that risk is negligible.
Your question is a red herring.

Because we are not talking about long term care in long term care facilities.
We are talking about a critical care ward in a hospital during a severe outbreak.

I thought the vaccinations were mandatory for all nurses and thus has nothing to do with critical care and severe outbreaks

But good to know that outside these perimeters you agree vaccinating is of little importance

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I thought the vaccinations were mandatory for all nurses and thus has nothing to do with critical care and severe outbreaks

But good to know that outside these perimeters you agree vaccinating is of little importance

Sure, if you want to totally ignore the situation in the topic in the first place and put words in my mouth to avoid my points.

Only one of the studies BB posted actually studies the topic, but does so in a different environment so cannot be used to make a similar conclusion about nurses in a hospital, never mind nurses in a critical care ward during a severe outbreak.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, if you want to totally ignore the situation in the topic in the first place and put words in my mouth to avoid my points.
Only one of the studies BB posted actually studies the topic, but does so in a different environment so cannot be used to make a similar conclusion about nurses in a hospital, never mind nurses in a critical care ward during a severe outbreak.

So what in a elderly residence is so fundamentally different then a Hospital ward

Both environments are dealing with lower immune systems ..Probably the Elderly care even more because of the normal decrease in T-cell function in older people

So why according to you is the study appropriate regarding the elderly care but has no validity when regarding a Hospital ward ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So what in a elderly residence is so fundamentally different then a Hospital ward

Both environments are dealing with lower immune systems ..Probably the Elderly care even more because of the normal decrease in T-cell function in older people

So why according to you is the study appropriate regarding the elderly care but has no validity when regarding a Hospital ward ?

As I have explained:

King Mob wrote: »

Long-term care facilities are not hospitals where people with flu will come to to get treatment and it is not about a critical care unit during a very large and serious outbreak.
So not relevant.

By virtue of being a hospital, nurses there will come into contact with people who are infectious, not least of which with the flu. These nurses (and especially ones that work in a critical care ward) would then also come into contact with people who are more vulnerable.

Long term care facilities would not by subject to the same level of infectious people coming in, so it's not comparable.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

As I have explained:

By virtue of being a hospital, nurses there will come into contact with people who are infectious, not least of which with the flu. These nurses (and especially ones that work in a critical care ward) would then also come into contact with people who are more vulnerable.

Long term care facilities would not by subject to the same level of infectious people coming in, so it's not comparable.

But i already stated that elderly people have a lower immune system so are more susceptible to attracting the virus anyway and they are not shielded from the outside world either

And yet the study concludes that there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in LTCFs.”

So why do you think the vaccination prevents influenza in a Hospital but is not effective when used around elderly residents in long-term care

weisses

weisses wrote: »

But i already stated that elderly people have a lower immune system so are more susceptible to attracting the virus anyway and they are not shielded from the outside world either

And yet the study concludes that there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in LTCFs.”

So why do you think the vaccination prevents influenza in a Hospital but is not effective when used around elderly residents in long-term care

Because, again being exceedingly clear: Hospitals have an influx of infectious people that a LTCF would not have.

Not sure why I need to spell this out so man times, nor how many more times I will need to so you'll stop pretending you don't get it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because, again being exceedingly clear: Hospitals have an influx of infectious people that a LTCF would not have.

Not sure why I need to spell this out so man times, nor how many more times I will need to so you'll stop pretending you don't get it.

Why do you always resort to veiled insults to make your points ?

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/geier.pdf

If its to long read the conclusion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626345/

Same here

http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/colorado_influenza_letter/

another interesting one

http://www.ddponline.org/2012/03/01/vaccination-and-the-herd/

And another one

A response without the personal jibes would be much appreciated

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Why do you always resort to veiled insults to make your points ?

It's not an insult, it's a statment of fact. I was exceedingly clear to the point where it is more likely that you are pretending to be obtuse.
You have still failed to explain what about my point you did not understand, further proving that point.

weisses wrote: »

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/geier.pdf

If its to long read the conclusion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626345/

Same here

http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/colorado_influenza_letter/

another interesting one

http://www.ddponline.org/2012/03/01/vaccination-and-the-herd/

And another one

A response without the personal jibes would be much appreciated

And once again you are over stateing and taking these out of context.
Only two of them are actual studies, the other two are opinion pieces.
And those two studies are not about health care workers and whether or not the spread the virus to vulnerable patients.

Also I like how you are supporting a paper that enthusiastically promotes Tamiflu which not to long ago was quite the boogeyman in this forum.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It's not an insult, it's a statment of fact. I was exceedingly clear to the point where it is more likely that you are pretending to be obtuse.
You have still failed to explain what about my point you did not understand, further proving that point.

How am i pretending to be Obtuse ?? please show me ... I thought we had a civil discussion

And who is determining it is fact i am only pretending besides you and some evidence to support your fact would be nice also ?

Nurses working in Hospitals are always potential carriers of the flu vaccinating doesn't change that ... fact ..... Only 60% of vaccinated people are immune ....fact

Then there is a study showing that in a place with a far less hygiene regime with a population that is highly perceptible for the flu .. no evidence is found that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza (elderly care)

I am showing you that the effect of the influenza vaccination is disputed by various people from all over the spectrum ...

So yeah i like to call the sacking of a nurse with 21 years of service who refuses to be vaccinated a farce based on a controversial mandate

weisses

weisses wrote: »

How am i pretending to be Obtuse ?? please show me ... I thought we had a civil discussion

And who is determining it is fact i am only pretending besides you and some evidence to support your fact would be nice also ?

Then explain what about my point you do not understand or was unclear.

weisses wrote: »

Nurses working in Hospitals are always potential carriers of the flu vaccinating doesn't change that ... fact ..... Only 60% of vaccinated people are immune ....fact

And even when they wash their hands, the are still potential carriers.
Washing your hands reduces the chances of passing on infections. The same is true for vaccines, as you just agreed.

weisses wrote: »

Then there is a study showing that in a place with a far less hygiene regime with a population that is highly perceptible for the flu .. no evidence is found that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza (elderly care)

But you are once again missing the important factor that I have repeatedly and clearly pointed to.
Hospitals have a influx of sick people bringing in a large amount of viruses that will be spread. LTCFs do not have this same factor.

weisses wrote: »

I am showing you that the effect of the influenza vaccination is disputed by various people from all over the spectrum ...

And this dispute is not about what you are claiming it is about. It is referring to the national vaccination policy as a whole, not whether or not vaccinating nurses is effective.

weisses wrote: »

So yeah i like to call the sacking of a nurse with 21 years of service who refuses to be vaccinated a farce based on a controversial mandate

Sure if you ignore the rest of the story, which you are, and ignore the contradictions and problems with your position.

The nurses refused the vaccines when they became mandatory during a severe outbreak.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Then explain what about my point you do not understand or was unclear.

Doesn't work that way ... You made the allegations ..at least have the balls to back them up or withdraw them

King Mob wrote: »

And even when they wash their hands, the are still potential carriers.
Washing your hands reduces the chances of passing on infections. The same is true for vaccines, as you just agreed.

Of course they all have some effect denying that would be delusional

King Mob wrote: »

But you are once again missing the important factor that I have repeatedly and clearly pointed to.
Hospitals have a influx of sick people bringing in a large amount of viruses that will be spread. LTCFs do not have this same factor.

Correct but you have to agree that the point i made is one to consider as well.. People in LCTF don't live isolated from the outside world either ... No stringent Hygiene measures are applicable there and the residents are highly susceptible to catch the virus .... agreed ?

King Mob wrote: »

And this dispute is not about what you are claiming it is about. It is referring to the national vaccination policy as a whole, not whether or not vaccinating nurses is effective.

Come on .....
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/geier.pdf

The current influenza vaccine program seems to be ineffective,
and the U.S. should consider replacing it with a program based
primarily on antiviral medications

King Mob wrote: »

Sure if you ignore the rest of the story, which you are, and ignore the contradictions and problems with your position.

Explain

King Mob wrote: »

The nurses refused the vaccines when they became mandatory during a severe outbreak.

Where does it state that ... i couldn't find where it only became mandatory because of a severe outbreak

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Doesn't work that way ... You made the allegations ..at least have the balls to back them up or withdraw them

Again: I made a very very clear point about how hospitals have more infectious people. You ignored this point and pretended that I did not make it. I asked you to explain what part of it you did not understand or did not agree with. Again you ignored it.
I made it perfectly clear so it is unlikely that you misunderstood it, so the more likely explanation is that you were being deliberately evasive.You still are being.

weisses wrote: »

Of course they all have some effect denying that would be delusional

So they have some effect at reducing infections. I now fail to see your objection.

weisses wrote: »

Correct but you have to agree that the point i made is one to consider as well.. People in LCTF don't live isolated from the outside world either ... No stringent Hygiene measures are applicable there and the residents are highly susceptible to catch the virus .... agreed ?

And again: hospitals have more people in highly infectious states than LTCFs or the outside world. Nurses come into contact with these people much more closely than they would in a LTCF or other people would with other people in the outside world.
This is the point you are ignoring.

weisses wrote: »

Come on .....
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/geier.pdf

The current influenza vaccine program seems to be ineffective,
and the U.S. should consider replacing it with a program based
primarily on antiviral medications

And, where specifically in there does it say that vaccinating health care workers is ineffective? (It doesn't)

Cause the conclusion you quote and the conclusion you want it to say are very different things.

weisses wrote: »

Explain

As I say below: the nurses refused a vaccine during a major outbreak.

You are also now arguing against the effectiveness of the vaccine despite claims at the state of the thread that this was not the issue. (Not to mention it's not the reason the nurses refused.) You are using papers that advocate the same mandatory programmes just with antiviral drugs (one of the named ones having been the focus of a few threads here.)

weisses wrote: »

Where does it state that ... i couldn't find where it only became mandatory because of a severe outbreak

http://news.yahoo.com/nurses-fired-refusing-flu-shot-224637902--abc-news-health.html
Second line:

The hospital imposed mandatory vaccines, responding to rising concerns about the spread of influenza.

The hospital said in a statement that it implemented the mandate to promote patient safety based on recommendations from the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They apparently were allowed to not have the vaccine for 20 years, but new guidelines were put in place because of the severe outbreaks.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Again: I made a very very clear point about how hospitals have more infectious people. You ignored this point and pretended that I did not make it.

Not true I asked you to clarify in post 125

why do you think the vaccination prevents influenza in a Hospital but is not effective when used around elderly residents in long-term care

... But you ignored the question in post 126 and needed to make the petty insults in post 127

What you did was moving the goalposts by claiming the study was irrelevant because it was a very large severe outbreak which is stated nowhere and somewhere you threw in the critical ward as criteria as well (post 117) again confirmed by you in post 120

So try again ... back up your allegations or shut up and try to do it properly this time

King Mob wrote: »

I asked you to explain what part of it you did not understand or did not agree with. Again you ignored it.

Show to me where you did this prior to post 126 where you claimed i was pretending not to understand you???

King Mob wrote: »

I made it perfectly clear so it is unlikely that you misunderstood it, so the more likely explanation is that you were being deliberately evasive.You still are being.

Again show me where i do that ...

King Mob wrote: »

So they have some effect at reducing infections. I now fail to see your objection.

How about firing a nurse Who is refusing them for 20 years with the explanation that you need to take these vaccinations because they have some effect

King Mob wrote: »

And again: hospitals have more people in highly infectious states than LTCFs or the outside world. Nurses come into contact with these people much more closely than they would in a LTCF or other people would with other people in the outside world.
This is the point you are ignoring.

I agreed with you already ... what point am i ignoring??

You ignored my point however that People in LCTF don't live isolated from the outside world either ... No stringent Hygiene measures are applicable there and the residents are highly susceptible to catch the virus .... agreed ?

King Mob wrote: »

And, where specifically in there does it say that vaccinating health care workers is ineffective? (It doesn't)

So its ineffective to everyone ..except nurses ?

King Mob wrote: »

Cause the conclusion you quote and the conclusion you want it to say are very different things.

Explain ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Not true I asked you to clarify in post 125

why do you think the vaccination prevents influenza in a Hospital but is not effective when used around elderly residents in long-term care

... But you ignored the question in post 126

What you did was moving the goalposts by claiming the study was irrelevant because it was a very large severe outbreak which is stated nowhere and somewhere you threw in the critical ward as criteria as well (post 117) again confirmed by you in post 120

Show to me where you did this prior to post 126 where you claimed i was pretending not to understand you???

Again show me where i do that ...

Lol, that wasn't the point I was referring to. But honestly not arsed to have another pointless drawn out argument like that.

weisses wrote: »

How about firing a nurse Who is refusing them for 20 years with the explanation that you need to take these vaccinations because they have some effect

So what you are saying there must have been some sort of emergency that resulted in a change in policy...?
Like for instance a severe outbreak of flu that would make them want to take every measure to arrest the spread of the virus as much as possible?

weisses wrote: »

I agreed with you already ... what point am i ignoring??

You ignored my point however that People in LCTF don't live isolated from the outside world either ... No stringent Hygiene measures are applicable there and the residents are highly susceptible to catch the virus .... agreed ?

Yes agreed.
However, do nurses in LTCFs come into regular and close contact with people severely infected with the flu then also those same highly susceptible people?

The answer is no.

weisses wrote: »

So its ineffective to everyone ..except nurses ?

No it doesn't say the vaccines are ineffective. It says the program is ineffective.
There's an important difference you are ignoring.

weisses wrote: »

Explain ?

As above, and you are using to conclude that giving the vaccine Health care workers is ineffective. The studies you are pointing to do not say this.

In addition, those same studies are promoting the same type of program but with anti-viral drugs. Would you object to nurses being forced to take anti-viral drugs?
If yes, all this attacking vaccines is pointless to your objection.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, that wasn't the point I was referring to. But honestly not arsed to have another pointless drawn out argument like that.

Of course you wouldn't argue it .. its easier to make petty insults and the when you are called out on it you just find it all pointless ... can't say im surprised really

King Mob wrote: »

So what you are saying there must have been some sort of emergency that resulted in a change in policy...?
Like for instance a severe outbreak of flu that would make them want to take every measure to arrest the spread of the virus as much as possible?

I just fixed your quote

But lets play ball ... Why wasn't there a mandatory vaccination in 2009/2010 during the mexican flu pandemic would have made more sense then

King Mob wrote: »

Yes agreed.
However, do nurses in LTCFs come into regular and close contact with people severely infected with the flu then also those same highly susceptible people?
The answer is no.

That's a bald statement .. but i leave you in that illusion ...

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't say the vaccines are ineffective. It says the program is ineffective.
There's an important difference you are ignoring.

wrote:

The annual risk of influenza is substantial, affecting, on
average, about 37.6% of the population annually. However, these
millions of influenza cases annually translate into an average of
about 1,300 deaths in the U.S., not the often-quoted inflated number
of 36,000 influenza deaths per year.
The current influenza vaccine program seems to be ineffective,
and the U.S. should consider replacing it with a program based
primarily on antiviral medications. Research is needed to develop
more and better antivirals, especially agents to which influenza
viruses do not readily develop resistance.
If the influenza vaccine program is to continue, improved
vaccines, which are not potentially infectious, are needed. It will be
necessary to develop and license an effective vaccine that confers
significant immunity to a wide variety of strains so that vaccine
does not have to be given every year.
Vaccine recipients need to be informed of the limitations and
risks of the vaccine and of the alternatives to vaccination. In
particular, they need to know of the possibility that repeated
vaccinations may increase the risk of adverse effects.

Again reading the above conclusion Im ignoring where what ?

King Mob wrote: »

As above, and you are using to conclude that giving the vaccine Health care workers is ineffective. The studies you are pointing to do not say this.

The whole vaccination is not very effective .. to everyone

King Mob wrote: »

In addition, those same studies are promoting the same type of program but with anti-viral drugs. Would you object to nurses being forced to take anti-viral drugs?
If yes, all this attacking vaccines is pointless to your objection.

I disagree with being forced to be vaccinated ... But hey maybe some new GM food will be developed that includes anti viral drugs

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I just fixed your quote

But lets play ball ... Why wasn't there a mandatory vaccination in 2009/2010 during the mexican flu pandemic would have made more sense then

Assuming this is true, why is it relevent?
There is a epidemic now. That's the reason the hospital changed their policy. What exactly are you disputing?

weisses wrote: »

That's a bald statement .. but i leave you in that illusion ...

Again avoiding the point I am making.

LTCFs are not comparable to hospitals for that reason.

weisses wrote: »

Again reading the above conclusion Im ignoring where what ?

The current influenza vaccine program seems to be ineffective

Program does not equal the vaccine itself.

weisses wrote: »

The whole vaccination is not very effective .. to everyone

But this contradicts what you said earlier. You said that it was 60% effective.
Have nurses 60% more immune to a virus means they'll spread less of it.

What the paper is claiming is ineffective is the program as a whole.

weisses wrote: »

I disagree with being forced to be vaccinated ... But hey maybe some new GM food will be developed that includes anti viral drugs

Lol dodging the question again.
Would you object to mandatory anti-virals?

Duiske

King Mob wrote: »

Only two of them are actual studies, the other two are opinion pieces.

So which has more validity, an actual study or an opinion piece ?. Only last week in the GMO thread you were claiming that a peer-reviewed study was flawed and unconvincing, and provided opinion pieces as evidence to back this up. You seem to have no real preference for one over the other, either actual study over opinion or vice-verse. You criteria for scientific validity appears to be based on whether or not it backs up your argument.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Assuming this is true, why is it relevent?
There is a epidemic now. That's the reason the hospital changed their policy. What exactly are you disputing?

Pandemic beats epidemic ... No mandatory flu shots were given then resulting in the nurses being fired then ...so why now ?

King Mob wrote: »

Again avoiding the point I am making.

LTCFs are not comparable to hospitals for that reason.

No I'm not you cannot make the statement that its not true that nurses in LTCFs come into regular and close contact with people severely infected with the flu

King Mob wrote: »

But this contradicts what you said earlier. You said that it was 60% effective.
Have nurses 60% more immune to a virus means they'll spread less of it.

Making something mandatory that only immunize 60% at best ..not very effective no...

King Mob wrote: »

What the paper is claiming is ineffective is the program as a whole.

Yeah ... all the reason to make it mandatory

King Mob wrote: »

Lol dodging the question again.
Would you object to mandatory anti-virals?

Probably yes ... depending on a lot of different factors ...
Don't you agree that it is to early to speculate on that ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Pandemic beats epidemic ... No mandatory flu shots were given then resulting in the nurses being fired then ...so why now ?

I don't know. Why do you believe that similar measures weren't introduced in some places? Why is it relevant?

weisses wrote: »

No I'm not you cannot make the statement that its not true that nurses in LTCFs come into regular and close contact with people severely infected with the flu

Lol so then people severely sick with the flu don't go to the hospital but instead go to old folk's homes?

Where do you think that there would be more infectious people?

weisses wrote: »

Making something mandatory that only immunize 60% at best ..not very effective no...

But 60% is better than nothing.
Should stuff be only used if it is 100% effective?

weisses wrote: »

Yeah ... all the reason to make it mandatory

And again over stating the paper and claiming it says stuff it does not.

weisses wrote: »

Probably yes ... depending on a lot of different factors ...
Don't you agree that it is to early to speculate on that ?

So then your objection to the vaccines is not actually based on people's rights, it's because they are not as effective as you would like.

This is quite different to the arguments being made earlier.

Duiske

Duiske wrote: »

So which has more validity, an actual study or an opinion piece ?. Only last week in the GMO thread you were claiming that a peer-reviewed study was flawed and unconvincing, and provided opinion pieces as evidence to back this up. You seem to have no real preference for one over the other, either actual study over opinion or vice-verse. You criteria for scientific validity appears to be based on whether or not it backs up your argument.

I wasn't basing that on an opinion piece, it was the opinion of several train professionals that directly pointed to the flaws in a specific paper.

This is not the same as the opinion pieces being provided here.

I'm not even rejecting them, I just don't think they are relevant to the points being made.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know. Why do you believe that similar measures weren't introduced in some places? Why is it relevant?

I cannot find documentation The mandatory vaccination was introduced before last year 2012

King Mob wrote: »

Lol so then people severely sick with the flu don't go to the hospital but instead go to old folk's homes?

claiming nurses working in old folks homes are not regularly exposed to infected people is something that you cannot claim but still defend

King Mob wrote: »

But 60% is better than nothing.
Should stuff be only used if it is 100% effective?

I think they have more of a case if you want this to be a mandatory vaccination

King Mob wrote: »

So then your objection to the vaccines is not actually based on people's rights, it's because they are not as effective as you would like

Where did i claim that ?
In my view You need something that is working almost 100% and doesn't raise the valid objections that its doing now as pointed out earlier in the thread

King Mob wrote: »

This is quite different to the arguments being made earlier.

What arguments ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I cannot find documentation The mandatory vaccination was introduced before last year 2012

That answers one of the three questions I asked.
Not going to chase you down on the other two as you have no intention of actually discussing this issue.

weisses wrote: »

claiming nurses working in old folks homes are not regularly exposed to infected people is something that you cannot claim but still defend

I did not claim this.
I said in clear terms, that you somehow misunderstood again, that nurses in hospitals are more regularly exposed to infections in hospitals.

weisses wrote: »

I think they have more of a case if you want this to be a mandatory vaccination

Where did i claim that ?
In my view You need something that is working almost 100% and doesn't raise the valid objections that its doing now as pointed out earlier in the thread

And again 60% is better that nothing. 60% safer is beneficial for the patients. Refusing to take the vaccine makes them less safe.

weisses wrote: »

What arguments ?

At the start of the thread.

So you are fine with people being fired for refusing a forced vaccination?

Do you stand up for anything or just take everything that authority says without so much as a mouse fart of opposition?

Where are they forced to wash their hands against their will ?

It is plain and simple. Your employer should not have the right to demand that you inject chemicals into your own body.

So I take it you disagree with all of these arguments and believe that forcing people to take a vaccine/anti-viral etc is acceptable?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That answers one of the three questions I asked.
Not going to chase you down on the other two as you have no intention of actually discussing this issue.

There was no mandatory vaccination program for nurses during the 09 Pandemic ...you cannot tell me the reasoning to have one now ... i know its difficult to answer because its illogical

King Mob wrote: »

I did not claim this.
I said in clear terms, that you somehow misunderstood again, that nurses in hospitals are more regularly exposed to infections in hospitals.

No i didn't misunderstood you i even agreed with you

King Mob wrote: »

However, do nurses in LTCFs come into regular and close contact with people severely infected with the flu then also those same highly susceptible people?

The answer is no.

sorry i misunderstood you there

King Mob wrote: »

And again 60% is better that nothing. 60% safer is beneficial for the patients. Refusing to take the vaccine makes them less safe.

For me that's not enough to warrant a mandatory vaccination program

King Mob wrote: »

At the start of the thread.

I leave these arguments with the people who made them

King Mob wrote: »

So I take it you disagree with all of these arguments and believe that forcing people to take a vaccine/anti-viral etc is acceptable?

Yes ... specially when looking at the arguments made here regarding the effectiveness of the vaccination and the program itself
I read somewhere today that an official said they were lucky this year regarding the active strains and the effect of the vaccanation (making it look like a lottery)

You disagree which is fine .. but there are plenty of valid points raised to be suspicious about this whole vaccination as it is atm ... let alone making it mandatory ... That's my view on it

weisses

weisses wrote: »

There was no mandatory vaccination program for nurses during the 09 Pandemic ...you cannot tell me the reasoning to have one now ... i know its difficult to answer because its illogical

And again, why is it relevant? How does it change the fact that there is a epidemic and that's the reason safety standards were tightened.

What other reasons do you suggest?

weisses wrote: »

For me that's not enough to warrant a mandatory vaccination program

How much would be?
And why the distinction?

weisses wrote: »

I leave these arguments with the people who made them

[/QUOTE]
And this illustrates the actual issue. You agree with me, but disagree with the conspiracy theorists. Yet you went looking to pick an argument with me for no reason.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And again, why is it relevant? How does it change the fact that there is a epidemic and that's the reason safety standards were tightened.

Because it would be logical to impose them during a pandemic rather then an almost seasonal epidemic ...at least logical to me

King Mob wrote: »

And this illustrates the actual issue. You agree with me, but disagree with the conspiracy theorists. Yet you went looking to pick an argument with me for no reason.

I meant to say this in my last post ....

Yes No... specially when looking at the arguments made here regarding the effectiveness of the vaccination and the program itself
I read somewhere today that an official said they were lucky this year regarding the active strains and the effect of the vaccanation (making it look like a lottery)

And for the record I made a post and you started quoting me so if anyone was picking an argument it would be you Im afraid..

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Because it would be logical to impose them during a pandemic rather then an almost seasonal epidemic ...at least logical to me

Again, this does not answer the questions I am asking you.

It's a fact that there is a more severe than usual epidemic this year. It's a fact that's why they changed their policy.

What isn't a fact is that they didn't make similar changes in previous years. Simply not being able to find references to it in the media is not sufficient to reach that conclusion. Nor is that non-fact relevant.
It's entirely possible that they changed the policy this time as people were worried that their response last time was unsatisfactory.

weisses wrote: »

I meant to say this in my last post ....

Yes No... specially when looking at the arguments made here regarding the effectiveness of the vaccination and the program itself

But you believe that's ok to force people to inject chemicals into their bodies in certain circumstances.
You disagree with the posters I quoted, you agree with me...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It's a fact that there is a more severe than usual epidemic this year. It's a fact that's why they changed their policy.

Ahh its going from epidemic to more severe then usual epidemic ..... slowly moving the goalposts

King Mob wrote: »

What isn't a fact is that they didn't make similar changes in previous years. Simply not being able to find references to it in the media is not sufficient to reach that conclusion. Nor is that non-fact relevant.
It's entirely possible that they changed the policy this time as people were worried that their response last time was unsatisfactory.

What is fact is that the nurses were still working there during the pandemic was it mandatory then the would have been fired then ... fact is they remained working there until lats month if you can point out to me that it was mandatory in 09 please share it because its interesting in this discussion

I think that what i say is logical ... Pandemic vs epidemic ... you think it would make more sense too for the cdc to have made it mandatory then but somehow you just cannot find it in yourself to actually agree with me .... fascinating

King Mob wrote: »

But you believe that's ok to force people to inject chemicals into their bodies in certain circumstances.
You disagree with the posters I quoted, you agree with me...

Please point out where i came to that conclusion ... you can quote me

And why would you say i picked an argument with you for no reason when you started arguing with me ??

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Ahh its going from epidemic to more severe then usual epidemic ..... slowly moving the goalposts

No I'm not moving the goalposts, you are just desperate for some excuse to ignore the point. I just clarified as once again you are purposefully misunderstanding what I've said.

weisses wrote: »

What is fact is that the nurses were still working there during the pandemic was it mandatory then the would have been fired then ... fact is they remained working there until lats month if you can point out to me that it was mandatory in 09 please share it because its interesting in this discussion

I think that what i say is logical ... Pandemic vs epidemic ... you think it would make more sense too for the cdc to have made it mandatory then but somehow you just cannot find it in yourself to actually agree with me .... fascinating

Again, what is the relevance of all this?

weisses wrote: »

Please point out where i came to that conclusion ... you can quote me

So then you don't believe that people should ever be forced to take drugs regardless of the situation.
Please make up you mind or be more clear, as you seem to be changing your answer purely to disagree.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So then you don't believe that people should ever be forced to take drugs regardless of the situation.

No buddy you said

King Mob wrote: »

But you believe that's ok to force people to inject chemicals into their bodies in certain circumstances.
You disagree with the posters I quoted, you agree with me...

2 specific claims you make here ... i asked you to point out where i came to that conclusion .. ... feel free to quote me maybe its just a misunderstanding

King Mob wrote: »

Please make up you mind or be more clear, as you seem to be changing your answer purely to disagree.

Again please show me where i change my answer purely to disagree

weisses

weisses wrote: »

No buddy you said

2 specific claims you make here ... i asked you to point out where i came to that conclusion .. ... feel free to quote me maybe its just a misunderstanding

Again please show me where i change my answer purely to disagree

Yea, you've avoid the simpliest of questions now cause you don't want to say that you don't disagree with me and dare to not agree with other conspiracy theorist.
This is a waste of time.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, you've avoid the simpliest of questions now cause you don't want to say that you don't disagree with me and dare to not agree with other conspiracy theorist.
This is a waste of time.

No i addressed your points i think

And please don't lecture me about avoiding questions I'm more then happy to quote you dodging/ignoring/refusing to answer questions or making false acquisitions in various threads ... so trim down a bit with the drama please

Its simple .. you stated

King Mob wrote: »

But you believe that's ok to force people to inject chemicals into their bodies in certain circumstances.
You disagree with the posters I quoted, you agree with me...

And

King Mob wrote: »

Please make up you mind or be more clear, as you seem to be changing your answer purely to disagree.

you cannot point out where i come to these conclusions and have no posts to quote me regarding me changing my answer deliberately

why do you need to lie and twist to make a point in almost every discussion we are having here on boards??

Every time i expose your dishonesty results in you disappearing from thread