Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One has to wonder at the dramatic uprise in the deadly bacteria MRSA in hospitals these days. As experts in bacteria have written, we are getting stronger and deadlier strains everywhere and if the hospital is so "clean" with all its antibacterial procedures, why is this??
Not being an infectious disease specialist, I don't know. I am guessing from anecdotal evidence that procedures are not being followed in many facilities - things like neglecting handwashing, placing catheter collection bags on floors, no peri care in catheterized patients, medication errors, etc. If you are in the hospital, these are things you should be paying attention to, and advocating for yourself, if you can. If you cannot, then you should have someone advocating for you, and make sure that person understands proper procedures.
I still maintain that, if anyone should be using antibacterials, it should be medical facilities, and not homes.
What about all the people you came in contact with on the way to the healthcare practice? How about everyone you came in close contact with over the past 48 hours?Each one of them is also a possible vector of transmission. Every breath you took over the prior 48 hours that contained the airborne droplets of flu has put you at risk.
The only person you can vouch for having been vaccinated is yourself. Make sure you are vaccinated if you are worried about the flu.
I think people are overestimating the effectiveness of mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers.
So you don't think that picking off the risks one by one is effective? Interesting.
Also, you do realize that not everyone can be vaccinated, right? And those people who cannot be vaccinated are frequently those who are at highest mortality risk from the flu?
Why? If you're that worried about it, get the shot yourself. Once you're immunized, why would it matter whether your nurse was immunized?
I have never asked anyone in my doctor's office if they are immunized. I figure that's their business. My business is deciding if I want to be immunized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
Exactly.
Exactly what? You do realize there are people, especially sick people, who cannot get the shot, such as people with certain cancers, and infants under six months old. People over 65 have a poorer response to the vaccine, and may not get as much immunity as a younger person. These are all people someone who works in a hospital is likely to encounter.
Unless you are using flu mist. That has a weakned virus snd can lead to shedding of the virus. It was contraindicated in healthcare workers.
No, the flu mist is NOT contraindicated in health workers, unless the person is working with people who are so severely immunosuppressed they must be in a protective environment.
There is very little shedding of the virus, and there has been little documented transmission, most of which has occurred in day care centers where hygiene is not always stellar, despite the best efforts of the staff.
The irony is that hospitals are hotbeds of filth and bacteria.
They have entire departments that are in place to "fight" Staph and now, MRSA, probably. But next time you go visit someone (if you are brave enough to expose yourself to who-knows-what) notice if you ever see a CNA, nurse, or doctor actually wash their hands after coming into the room (and then before leaving). This has always been a problem . . .
All this argument is totally moot because an employer can choose to terminate an employee for ANY reason at ANY time. That means they can fire you for not getting a flu shot or just because they do not like the particular tie you wore to work that morning. Or they can just say "Bob, you are fired" and not even give you a reason.
All this argument is totally moot because an employer can choose to terminate an employee for ANY reason at ANY time. That means they can fire you for not getting a flu shot or just because they do not like the particular tie you wore to work that morning. Or they can just say "Bob, you are fired" and not even give you a reason.
Obviously, you have never worked for a corporation. There are laws and rules about hiring and firing. There are "protected classes," and protocols to follow when firing someone.
So you don't think that picking off the risks one by one is effective? Interesting.
Also, you do realize that not everyone can be vaccinated, right? And those people who cannot be vaccinated are frequently those who are at highest mortality risk from the flu?
As I said, I feel that too much benefit is expected as a consequence of healthcare workers being forced to be vaccinated. As long as the general public and especially visitors to a hospital setting are not forced to get vaccinated, the overall risk of getting the flu isn't changing much.
It is weird that flu vaccinations are never questioned regarding their efficacy and possible side effects. Side effects are always minimized to the public (despite there needing to be an adverse reaction fund to pay for serious side effects from the vaccination). Maybe if the CDC et al were more upfront about the possible side effects instead of always minimizing or denying them, people would feel that they were getting an honest appraisal of the vaccination?
I have seen efficacy ratings as low as 39% for the vaccination. If true, that is below the placebo effect. The latest claim I have seen was 60%, which still seems rather low considering all the hype on how valuable the vaccine is.
The 36,000 per year death claim also never seems to change whether the vaccine is a good match or not or if the percentage of the population vaccinated significantly changes or not. If the number of deaths don't change at all something is wrong. Was the number just pulled from one year's results and just echoed each year?
As I said, I feel that too much benefit is expected as a consequence of healthcare workers being forced to be vaccinated. As long as the general public and especially visitors to a hospital setting are not forced to get vaccinated, the overall risk of getting the flu isn't changing much.
It is weird that flu vaccinations are never questioned regarding their efficacy and possible side effects. Side effects are always minimized to the public (despite there needing to be an adverse reaction fund to pay for serious side effects from the vaccination). Maybe if the CDC et al were more upfront about the possible side effects instead of always minimizing or denying them, people would feel that they were getting an honest appraisal of the vaccination?
I have seen efficacy ratings as low as 39% for the vaccination. If true, that is below the placebo effect. The latest claim I have seen was 60%, which still seems rather low considering all the hype on how valuable the vaccine is.
The 36,000 per year death claim also never seems to change whether the vaccine is a good match or not or if the percentage of the population vaccinated significantly changes or not. If the number of deaths don't change at all something is wrong. Was the number just pulled from one year's results and just echoed each year?
I don't know where the 36,000 figure came from; I did not use it.
Over a period of 31 seasons between 1976 and 2007, estimates of flu-associated deaths in the United States range from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people. During a regular flu season, about 90 percent of deaths occur in people 65 years and older. The “seasonal flu season” in the United States can begin as early as October and last as late as May.
As far as effectiveness, you can see the CDC explanation here.
The CDC says that most side effect are mild - pain, redness, swelling at injection site...see here. It also states that anyone can file an adverse reaction report, so reporting of adverse reactions is more self-selected and therefore subject to doubt. They also encourage health care providers to report possible reactions, even if they don't know that the vaccine caused it.
Hope this helps.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once you're immunized, why would it matter whether your nurse was immunized?
