Should Health Care Workers Have to Get a Flu Shot? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 5 Old 02-16-2014, 03:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Yes, we've discussed it, but how about another go at this topic? I'm sort of spinning off of the "natural consequences" thread.

If you go to cochrane.org and enter "influenza vaccination" in the search bar, you'll pull up a wide array of independent meta-analyses. Most of them call into question the routine vaccination for influenza in healthy adults, children under 2, health care workers working with the elderly, and a variety of vulnerable, high-risk populations.

We also have newer evidence about health care workers from CIDRAP. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/09/analysis-finds-limited-evidence-hcw-flu-vaccination

So first of all, if there is a lack of evidence supporting vaccinating health care workers in a nursing home setting--full of elderly individuals with a wide assortment of immuno-compromised conditions--what evidence do we have that it will be effective in a hospital setting--full of individuals of all ages with a wide assortment of immuno-compromised conditions?

Second, should people really be losing their informed consent rights--their right to weigh the evidence and say yes or no-- over a medical intervention with what we now know is only a 24% success rate? http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/02/spanish-study-finds-current-flu-vaccine-gives-limited-protection

Should people give up their rights over the philosophy that 24% is somehow better than 0%?

Frankly, in the case of coercive intervention, the burden of proof rests with those imposing and supporting the intervention. So for those of you who do support mandatory influenza vaccination for HCWs, what kind of proof can you provide that this is an effective practice? And when you make your case, how are you defining "effective?"
serenbat likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#2 of 5 Old 02-16-2014, 04:50 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,371
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


So first of all, if there is a lack of evidence supporting vaccinating health care workers in a nursing home setting--full of elderly individuals with a wide assortment of immuno-compromised conditions--what evidence do we have that it will be effective in a hospital setting--full of individuals of all ages with a wide assortment of immuno-compromised conditions?

 

I want to correct something that always gets brought up - nursing homes, they are NOT all elderly, many but clearly not all.

 

Many people do not realize that (what my state has) are nursing homes, most are run by the county and there are also private ones ($$$) but all except 18+, so this notion that only elderly are in is simply not the case. I know the support the flu side always seems to think we are talking about 65+ each and every time but that is not true.

applejuice and caned & able like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#3 of 5 Old 02-17-2014, 04:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
That's a good point. I've worked in a nursing home setting and observed the same thing. This further blurs the distinction between hospital and nursing home patients.

I'm curious what our regulars think of the latest research on this year's influenza vaccine. I found that 24% number pretty shocking.
applejuice and caned & able like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#4 of 5 Old 02-17-2014, 04:48 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

No. No employment should require the acquisition of a substance injected into them.

 

I would object to an iron shot or vitamin shot.

 

You are an employee, not a slave.

Mirzam, caned & able and serenbat like this.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#5 of 5 Old 02-18-2014, 06:18 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,139
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)

Even if a vaccine is brilliantly effective and there is a current outbreak of a disease, I am not sure there are  grounds to insist a healthcare worker have a shot.  I need to to think about it. I definitely think non-invasive, risk free methods of disease control need to be explored (masks, desk duty, stay home when you are sick.)

 

The flu vaccine is hardly "brilliantly effective."

 

The case has not been made that the flu vaccines reduce transmission enough in hospital settings to warrant discussions of mandatory employee vaccination.  

  

 

Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Second, should people really be losing their informed consent rights--their right to weigh the evidence and say yes or no-- over a medical intervention with what we now know is only a 24% success rate? http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/02/spanish-study-finds-current-flu-vaccine-gives-limited-protection

Should people give up their rights over the philosophy that 24% is somehow better than 0%?
 

 

 

This was a pretty good read.  It discussed the differences between the Canadian estimate of effectiveness (70%) and the Spanish (24%).  Long story short - different strain were circulating in different countries and the Canadian study only had about 10% elderly in it, while the Spanish had 1/3.  Efficacy rates in elderly are known to be lower.  

 

I double checked a msm article to see if it let the public know that the Canadian study design had low elderly participation and thus would show more favourable results..nope.  Of course not.  So - 70% is being sold to the public as an average when really it is more like"average in people we know the flu vaccine works best on."

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-shot-offers-good-protection-against-serious-illness-for-2014-1.2525951

 

"The vaccine appeared to be about 71 per cent effective against all flu strains, and 74 per cent effective against H1N1, the strain responsible for more than nine in 10 of all confirmed flu infections this year in Canada, the study says."

 

OTOH, the Spanish study saying 24% may also be misleading.  Is 1/3 of their population really elderly?

When you look at effectiveness rates in the under 65's in Spain, it was quite a bit higher than 24%.

 

I suppose the take-away message is you need to look at study design and not just take msm articles at face value.  That might be something we can all agree on, lol.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off