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.
This is what I don't get. A patient is far more likely to contract the virus from another patient or a visitor to the hospital than a hospital worker. The hospital workers are using gloves and often masks. Visitors and other patients don't and there are more of them. Statistics says you wouldn't have much impact on cases of the flu by forcing workers to have the shot. I don't think that's why the hospital did it. I think they did it for money. People taking sick days costs them money. Forcing employees to get the shot would mean fewer sick days paid.
Seriously?!? They're doing it to save from paying sick days? Really??? Then they must think it works, huh? Sheesh.
You are a science teacher so surely you understand that viruses, unlike bacteria, are not capable of surviving without a host for very long, most a matter of seconds or minutes. If a person has immunity to a virus then the virus cannot bind to their cells, which means they can't replicate and spread. So if Nurse Nora treats patient A who has the flu she is less likely to spread it to patient B, who is immunosuppressed, if she has been vaccinated. Chances are Nurse Nora is healthy and can fight it, and may never come down with any symptoms but patient B can't fight it and it can become life threatening.
There are all kinds of jobs that require people to do risky things to their bodies - soldiers, firemen, police, etc. - and the consensus seems to be they choose the job so they chose to volunteer to undertake that risk just by taking the job. Health care workers and vaccinations are no different.
I don't believe hospitals motives are concern over the health of patients.
If that were the case, there would be more stringent hygienic measures in place to curtail MRSA and Staph infections, which are RAMPANT in hospitals. I don't know what the stats are, but people are in danger of contacting MRSA and Staph when they come in for other issues . . . maybe someone can posts those stats so people will see what the real contagion issues are.
The hospitals motives probably have more to do with bolstering pharmaceutical company sales (and maybe making a few bucks themselves in the process) and curtailing hospital personnel sick time. I doubt it has anything at all to do with patient health.
To the people who can provide stats on MRSA and Staph infection rates in hospitals - can you also compile stats on how many patients actually contract influenza while in the hospital for other reasons? I doubt this is a significant number.
AND just to reiterate: No one should be able to dictate what anyone else puts into their body. It is completely outrageous that any corporation thinks they have the RIGHT to insist someone inject toxins into their body for any reason.
Seriously?!? They're doing it to save from paying sick days? You are a science teacher so surely you understand that viruses, unlike bacteria, are not capable of surviving without a host for very long, most a matter of seconds or minutes. If a person has immunity to a virus then the virus cannot bind to their cells, which means they can't replicate and spread. So if Nurse Nora treats patient A who has the flu she is less likely to spread it to patient B, who is immunosuppressed, if she has been vaccinated. Chances are Nurse Nora is healthy and can fight it, and may never come down with any symptoms but patient B can't fight it and it can become life threatening.
There are all kinds of jobs that require people to do risky things to their bodies - soldiers, firemen, police, etc. - and the consensus seems to be they choose the job so they chose to volunteer to undertake that risk just by taking the job. Health care workers and vaccinations are no different.
Actually, viruses CAN survive without a host quite a while. this is from the Mayo clinic's site:
"...depending partly on where the germ-laden droplets fall. Experiments with specific cold and flu germs have shown potential survival times ranging from a few minutes to 48 hours or more. How long such germs remain capable of infecting you in day-to-day life is harder to say"
What viruses cannot do is reproduce without a host. Don't confuse survival and reproduction. While bacteria can reproduce without a host, they are actually easier to kill on surfaces. Just using a wood cutting board (without cleaning it) will kill most bacteria within an hour (the capilary action in the wood draws water away from the bacteria which needs water to survive.) Viruses do not need water to survive.
The math is simple here. If there is one hospital worker for every 10 patients and visitors in the hospital, how much do you reduce the potential exposure to the virus (given that even someone who does not have an active case of the virus themselves can carry and transmit the virius (another nasty trait of viruses)? ANSWER: Not much. What you will reduce is sick time taken by hospital employees as most will either not get the flu (not the same as not being exposed to and able to spread the flu. Many viruses are actually transmissable when the patient is asymptomatic.)
Saying immunizing hospital workers slows the spread of the flu among patients is like saying my being immunized will slow the spread of the flu through the school. Not by much.
And, FTR, I know a lot about viruses because my dd was born susceptable to several common strains. Viruses are survivors. Not only can they live on surfaces, they mutate quickly. You can pass a virus to someone, it can mutate and they pass can it right back to you (sometimes we see 2 or 3 different strains of the flu in one season). The only value I see in the flu shot being required for employees is in reduced sick days and THAT is not reason to expect all employees to be immunized. I choose to be immunized because I don't like writing sub plans.
And yes, they would do this to curtail sick days. When a flu goes around, you tend to have several people out sick at once and it can be difficult to cover shifts. Requiring the vaccine can prevent that from happening. It's wrong but it can prevent this situation. The vaccine should be offered for free but not forced.
The employees are far more likely to contract the flu than the patients are and people who work together share germs (they are passing charts to each other, using the same phone, sharing pens and pencils, etc, etc, etc,). What do you do when a whole floor of nurses gets the flu?
Don't kid yourself. They're not doing this for the patients. They're doing this for themselves.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-05-2013 at 09:21 PM..
I think, overall, what this demonstrates (hospitals firing nurses for not complying with their dumb, immoral rule) is corporate disdain for the intelligence of the public. They think they can present this as a concern for patients and that the "common people" won't be able to see the inconsistencies with statistical evidence and their lack of concern for other, more virulent contagions (such as Staph and MRSA) . . .
They basically think the American public is dumb as rocks.
I don't believe hospitals motives are concern over the health of patients.
If that were the case, there would be more stringent hygienic measures in place to curtail MRSA and Staph infections, which are RAMPANT in hospitals. I don't know what the stats are, but people are in danger of contacting MRSA and Staph when they come in for other issues . . . maybe someone can posts those stats so people will see what the real contagion issues are.
The hospitals motives probably have more to do with bolstering pharmaceutical company sales (and maybe making a few bucks themselves in the process) and curtailing hospital personnel sick time. I doubt it has anything at all to do with patient health.
To the people who can provide stats on MRSA and Staph infection rates in hospitals - can you also compile stats on how many patients actually contract influenza while in the hospital for other reasons? I doubt this is a significant number.
AND just to reiterate: No one should be able to dictate what anyone else puts into their body. It is completely outrageous that any corporation thinks they have the RIGHT to insist someone inject toxins into their body for any reason.
Do you also believe the government is planting secret devices in you to track your every movement?
MRSA is everywhere...at least 50% of the general population carry it. Have your nose swabbed and tested...there's a good chance you have it.
What additional precautions would you reccomend? I'm assuming you have that answer since you seem to have all the others.
So hospitals want to bolster pharmaceutical company sales??? That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've read on this site (and that's saying a lot). Bolstering pharma sales means increasing costs to the hospital which means less profit to the hospital.
Then you say the hospital is trying to curtail sick time (well no s h i t Sherlock - does any company WANT their employees out sick?) so they can reduce costs.
So which is it?
I think, overall, what this demonstrates (hospitals firing nurses for not complying with their dumb, immoral rule) is corporate disdain for the intelligence of the public. They think they can present this as a concern for patients and that the "common people" won't be able to see the inconsistencies with statistical evidence and their lack of concern for other, more virulent contagions (such as Staph and MRSA) . . .
They basically think the American public is dumb as rocks.
Actually, viruses CAN survive without a host quite a while. this is from the Mayo clinic's site:
"...depending partly on where the germ-laden droplets fall. Experiments with specific cold and flu germs have shown potential survival times ranging from a few minutes to 48 hours or more. How long such germs remain capable of infecting you in day-to-day life is harder to say"
That doesn't contradict what I said. Yes, some live longer without a host but most don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
What viruses cannot do is reproduce without a host. Don't confuse survival and reproduction.
I haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
And, FTR, I know a lot about viruses because my dd was born susceptable to several common strains. Viruses are survivors. Not only can they live on surfaces, they mutate quickly. You can pass a virus to someone, it can mutate and they pass can it right back to you (sometimes we see 2 or 3 different strains of the flu in one season).
Just like viruses can only reproduce in a host, they can only mutate in a host.
This is what I don't get. A patient is far more likely to contract the virus from another patient or a visitor to the hospital than a hospital worker. The hospital workers are using gloves and often masks. Visitors and other patients don't and there are more of them. Statistics says you wouldn't have much impact on cases of the flu by forcing workers to have the shot. I don't think that's why the hospital did it. I think they did it for money. People taking sick days costs them money. Forcing employees to get the shot would mean fewer sick days paid.
B#1: Hogwash! I counted it up a few posts back, a patient has contact with ten or more staff a day. Sometimes they don't even have one visitor.
B#2: Produce these statistics or give it up. I've never seen them.
B#3: I saw Elvis today at Walmart. That's what I think about these nutty conspiracy theories.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-05-2013 at 10:11 PM..
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.
This is what I don't get. A patient is far more likely to contract the virus from another patient or a visitor to the hospital than a hospital worker. The hospital workers are using gloves and often masks. Visitors and other patients don't and there are more of them. Statistics says you wouldn't have much impact on cases of the flu by forcing workers to have the shot. I don't think that's why the hospital did it. I think they did it for money. People taking sick days costs them money. Forcing employees to get the shot would mean fewer sick days paid.
this is from the Mayo clinic's site:
