I understand the process of vaccination and I am for it. I am against the idea that an EMPLOYER can require an employee to be injected with something or lose their job. That's a very different standard. This is not the government mandating an injection. This is a private hospital owned and operated by the private sector saying 'You let us inject you with something or we fire you.'

They are using a brand new untested vaccine with no track history. They want to inject it into pregnant women. At one time in the 50s and 60s they released a drug called Thalidomide which they believed was safe but they failed to have a long enough track record to know what impact it would have on an embryo. oops...

Show me a study that tells us what happens to the fetus of a pregnant woman injected with the new vaccine for H1N1. You can't, because none exists. Yet you think a pregnant nurse should lose her job if she tells her EMPLOYER that she doesn't want to be injected with an untested vaccine?

Seeing the difference?

I'm in the Netherlands, but mandatory vaccination and testing before being allowed to perform exposure-prone procedures is pretty common around the world, as far as I know.

It only makes sense, to be honest - you don't want a patient to be infected with an incurable illness if a clumsy surgeon nicks his own hand during an invasive procedure.

This is a picture of a typical thalidomide child:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...s1_468x390.jpg


That's what can happen when you give a pregnant woman a medication that you have failed to test sufficiently. :2 cents:

I'll take that to mean that no, you have no idea whatsoever of how it works.

So I'll go ahead and explain it.

When an infected person sneezes, coughs into his hand, wipes his nose, etc., he contaminates things for the period of time the virus can stay alive outside of the human body. Now, this can cause him to directly infect someone else, or - what you are focusing on - cause an indirect infection.

While indirect infections are indeed a risk, they're limited by the fact that outside of a living body, the virus won't stay alive for all that long. Moreover, because the virus does not have any cells to use to replicate itself, no new viral particles are being created.

So if someone infected with the flu goes all around a hospital, sneezing and coughing everyhwhere, if he fails to infect anyone it won't be long before the virus has died off again and everything is safe once more.

However, if he does infect some people, they will also start spreading the virus around.

And that's where vaccinations come in. By vaccinating health care workers, you greatly increase chances that the virus from one patient will die off before it gets the chance to infect someone else. And keep in mind that the flu virus, for example, only stays alive for a few minutes on human skin.

It's the same concept as herd immunity: the lower the chances of a person infecting someone else, the lower the chances of a full-blown outbreak. Because outbreaks depend on each case of infection causing one or more additional cases of infection before ending.

Now, if health care workers simply get vaccinated and follow proper protocol, chances of the infection being spread are quite small. Sure, a few infected patients might infect a few others, but there's a decent chance that there's enough distance in space and time between contact with infected individuals and susceptible individuals to prevent infections from spreading out.

On the other hand, without vaccinations, health care workers themselves can actually become sources of infection rather than just uninfected short-term carriers. You don't need to be an immunologist to see just how much more likely and how much faster that makes the spread of infections.

And that's why a vaccine with, say, radically new and different adjuvants would have to be tested extensively before being used.

That's the whole point here, which has been described rather thoroughly in this thread: this H1N1 vaccine is not something radically new. It uses well-tested adjuvants, and the only really new part is the strain of influenza that's present in an attenuated form.

But if the attenuated form of the virus would have serious long term side effects, the same would go for the actual virus a thousandfold. Not to mention the fact that those side effects would also have showed up using attenuated forms of similar strains over the past decades.

logic and science doesn't work with these idiots. why bother.

just because some apes managed to type a couple keys on a computer doesn't make them intelligent.

And if YOU believe that, then you should get injected with it....
but if a pregnant woman doesn't believe that would be best for her embryo, she should not be fired for saying no. Pretty simple...

Yup...

http://www.des.umd.edu/biosafety/rest/h1n1.html#seven

http://www.doh.wa.gov/H1N1/h1n1_faq.htm

http://answers.flu.gov/questions/3943




Thank God it dies nearly instantly when outside of a living body.. phew. A mere 8 hours.

Im sure its unlikely that more than 1 person would touch say a doorknob, or a chair, etc, etc in a 2 to 8 hour span.. Especially in a public health facility like say an emergency room, or a doctors office. They usually only get like 2 people there a day...

Good thing people don't do things like read magazines or stuff like that while waiting to be examined... phew..

What medical school do you currently attend? Im glad we have brilliant medical students such as you that can give sound advice to the members of gfy like .


Sound sound advice.... :1orglaugh

if your immune system is so strong you should be able to shrug off any negative side effects of the vaccination.

Now go google how long it stays alive on human skin :2 cents:

(hint: it's rather shorter)

Wow that is retarded logic... But fuck ok, link us to it El brilliant medical student...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/inf...isease/AN01238

But eh, sticky... I believe you're now trying to argue that vaccinations don't slow down the spread of infections?

You do realize how idiotic that point is, right?

Which is LEAST likely to die?
A) Someone vaccinated and exposed to the virus
B) Someone not vaccinated and exposed to the virus
C) Someone vaccinated and not exposed to the virus
D) Someone not vaccinated and not exposed to the virus

I think anyone would agree D is the least likely.
I think anyone would agree C poses some risk that was not necessary
I think anyone would agree B poses some risk but is far from severe for most people
I think anyone would agree A poses some risk but is far from severe for most people

The above facts do not in any way change the basic point that it should be YOUR decision about your own body. You are arguing whether a person should get vaccinated and others are arguing that it isn't your decision to make unless it is your body being injected. Do you not see that those two points are not the same?

Oh it lives... longer on surfaces than human skin.. ok so how much longer? And exactly how does that make a difference in an ER or hospital with doorknobs and all kinds of other common objects that can be touched?

No it might slow it down, Id rather have my own immune system build up an immunity on its own. I guess you run and get antibiotics every time you have a sniffle too huh?

The point of this thread is people being forced to have untested vaccines injected in them in order to continue at a job. Vaccines that contain mercury as a preservative... sounds awesome. :1orglaugh


Tell us all again how the virus dies almost instantly outside the human body...

Actually, what I'm talking about is the risk of infecting others. If a nurse doesn't mind getting sick herself, that's no problem of mine. If a nurse infects an immunocompromised patient, on the other hand, it's a major problem.

This isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's about protecting others from their choices.

If you're not willing to do everything within your power to ensure that you don't negatively affect the health of your patients, you should take a long, hard look at whether you should be working in a hospital.

Yes because when medical professionals disagree with being forced to get the vaccination they are obvious wackos. People who actually completed their degree and are currently working in the medical profession are wackos for not wanting the vaccine forced upon them. lolz :1orglaugh

In the real world of US health care...a hospital has to attempt to protect itself from a law suite...and if staff at a hospital infected a patient with the flu which in turn caused the death of that patient and an attorney learned that the hospital had not attempted to protect its patients from staff in that the hospital did not require staff to immunize themselves...they would be open to a law suite.

Someone like Sticky would be the first in line to sue...if it was his loved one that had died because Staff had caused their death.

Jesus did someone buy your nick recently? lol Kind of obvious. I've never sued anyone, and people get sick from other people in hospitals all the time. How exactly would one prove the infection came from staff and not another patient? Quite retarded...

Yes people get sick all of the time...and hospitals are frequently sued because of what happens to a patient while in the hospital. There are multiple scenarios where one could win a case that they were infected by staff (as has been proven before)...especially since in a civil case the evidence required is minimal...as differentiated from a criminal case. BTW...I said someone like you...not you...now didn't I?"

Yup people sue for all kinds of shit when it comes to doctors, why do you think healthcare costs so much? Im not in that group that is sue happy sorry.

No one is "forced" to do anything... job requires it, you either do it, or you find another job... the requirements are pretty reasonable and are just designed to protect safety/health of the public...

just like a cook is required to wash his hands before handling food, just like a construction worker is required to wear a hard-hat or perhaps just like a pilot is required to pass random drug/alcohol tests...

You are probably thinking.. "yea, but that's different, washing hands poses no risk to anyone"... but sure it does, I wouldn't be surprised if more people die from some weird antibacterial soap allergic reaction than from flu vaccines...

You are correct...different jobs have different requirements and if you cannot abide by those requirements of course you will be fired. Health care workers should be required by their employers to immunize themselves in an attempt to protect themselves as well as their patients. Health care workers...just as other workers...have the choice of finding other employment...if they refuse to abide by the requirements of the job.

You are a nurse who has worked at a hospital for 29 years and need 30 to qualify for pension benefits. You are pregnant. Your 'choice' is to either get injected with something you believe will harm your embryo... which has not be thoroughly tested by any clinical trial involving pregnant women... or to forgo becoming fully vested for your pension.

U.S. Law will never allow that to happen. :2 cents:

You are a military nurse whom is pregnant with 29 years of service and have to have 30 years of service to receive 75% retirement pay as compared to 50% retirement pay with 29 years of service and you are told to be immunized with something you think may harm yourself or your baby...or forego being allowed to put in your 30...guess what...you will not only be fired but will receive a less than honorable discharge...and will be denied any retirement pay. So US law will allow it to happen. BTW...military personel are required to take so many shots it is not funny at all...and do so virtually every time they deploy.

VERY different example based on the agreement signed by the person when they enlisted.
Show me a nurse who signed an agreement with a hospital giving the hospital the right to inject him or her with anything....

I do not know what contractual agreements any hospitals have with their employees...but I would suspect that there are variants upon the agreements different hospitals have and I would not be in the least surprised that one has to have a record of various things they have been given shots for and in fact would be surprised if it was not a requirement.

The problem in your argument is that it HAS been tested... Libertine can probably explain it better than me, but the way I understand it the chemical composition is the same each year, it's prepared exactly the same way, except they mix in different strains of the virus each year... so there is no scientific basis for believing that this year's batch is any less safe than the batches from the past...

but still, that's life, if department of health announces that food workers now need to wash their hands with a different soap than they did for the past 50 years... it's tough luck, whether you are pregnant or 2 months away from retirement, you are washing your hands with the new soap or are finding a new job... :2 cents:

Ya you might have a point if the soap contained mercury and had the possibility of fucking your health up or killing you...

I love how you glossed over the fact that you were 100% wrong about the virus having next to no life span outside of a living organism. 2-8 hours is near instant huh?

Please tell all us non medical students how you were 100% right though....

it does have possibility of killing you, like I said earlier, it's quite possible more people die from allergic reaction from antibacterial soap then from flu vaccines..

oh dear .... as someone who's waited for hours on end at ERs doctors and nurses are the least of your problems when at the hospital. When you wait for 3-4-5-6 or more hours in the ER waiting room you're around coughing and bleeding people who've touched chairs and everything. And then you have all the outside visitors who come and go ...

I was just at a hospital the other day. In the waiting room they had several lotion dispensers attached on the walls full of hand sanitizing lotion. Out of about 30 people who came in and waited around only 3 used it!

Also a nurse nor a doctor, in America at least, would rarely touch you without wearing latex gloves most of the time. I've seen many wearing latex gloves even while filling out paperwork and changing them with fresh ones before touching you! Our nurse went trough 3 or 4 pairs of latex gloves in an hour

Also when you're on chemo or with a compromised immune system you should be wearing a mask when going out anywhere anyway!

A Walmart or a Safeway has more people touching things, which you end up bringing home with you, in less than a day than your average hospital anywhere

I cannot find where he stated "near instant" (maybe you can quote him saying that). I believe that he said it cannot live long and 2-8 hours is not long...in my opinion...and apparently that is only on non pourous objects.

I figured there was no point in trying to debate something I didn't say. After all, while you said "near instant" I said "not for all that long". If you can't see the difference, you're an idiot, quite frankly. Then again, no news there.

For the record: 5-15 minutes on skin and up to a few hours on hard surfaces isn't all that long, especially when you consider that it isn't an on/off switch - the longer you wait, the more viral particles die off, with the minimum needed for any significant chance of infection being reached near the maximum time. Before that, however, chances already decrease rapidly as more and more particles die off.

But that aside, the reason I'll ignore you from now on is another (although related) one: you can't comprehend the very simple fact that infected people are the ones spreading the virus (both to people and objects), and that lowering the rate of infection will thus also lower the rate of new infections.

It's the reason I kept asking you whether you understood how the virus gets spread (a question which you failed to answer several times), and it's why you keep insisting on the incredibly dimwitted idea that vaccinations do not prevent the spread of infections among specifically localized groups of people.

Quite frankly, there is no point in talking with someone who doesn't understand that very, very simple mechanism even after having had it explained to him several times.

If 8 hours in a public place like a hospital waiting room that sees hundreds of patients a day is a short period of time, what is a long time? lol

To me a virus that has short term life is under an hour. 8 hours? :error


How many people could touch a surface in an 8 hour period and get the flu?

Anyways this whole thing is an over hyped bunch of media and government bullshit. Happens every few years... this or that happens, and we all get scared. OMG I could die.. I better hurry up and run out and spend x amount on this or that to stay safe.. rubes.. :1orglaugh

Love how you downplay it. Funny all the government sites seem to say up to 8 hours. Yet you downplay it to 2 hours... Ok 2 hours in an ER room with say 50 people an hour entering and leaving. Using common pens and magazines to fill out forms. Sitting in chairs others have put their hands on, breathed on etc.

But whatever you are right IM sure... :error

I have and do get a flu shot every year...not because of any fear of death from the flu...but because I do not like being sick. If there was a shot for the common cold I would take it...once again because I do not like being sick with a cold. BTW...I have not had the flu since I was a kid.

The point that he made...and a damn good point...is surfaces are contaminated by people that have the flu...the fewer people that have the flu the less contamination. He never said that people do not get the flu from contaminated objects. And once again 2-8 hours is not a very long life span...now is it?

BTW...please point out where he downplays it to 2 hours...I believe he said not long. He has been factual in every post he has made and...in my opinion has not downplayed or overplayed any point.

Well you are twice as likely to catch the swine flu due to those yearly flu shots. ..

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09...Study?from=rss


Makes you wonder what the next big epidemic will be and if the swine flu shot will make you more likely to catch that one. lol :1orglaugh

What's a long time? Hmm, let's see... perhaps the several days that an infected individual carries and spreads mucus carrying the virus to numerous other individuals and objects? You know, the thing we use vaccinations against?

Also, great job on not understanding that it's not an on/off switch, not understanding that lifetime depends on circumstances, and not understanding that the carrier liquid is not infinite.

One last attempt at making you understand that bit: we're not talking about a surface being "infected" for a specific amount of time. Rather, there is some liquid (mucus, most likely) containing viral particles on a surface. The moment that liquid leaves the body, environmental circumstances for the virus start changing up to the eventual point where no viral particles are left alive.

The longer it takes, the more that die off and the lower chances of infection being spread get. Moreover, every touch of the surface will actually remove some carrier liquid, thus transferring it to the person who touched it (and potentially infecting that person if he transfers it to his mucus membranes). This, however, leaves less to infect others. Because the mucus in question does not mysteriously multiply.

That's why you want to avoid having infected people working around the hospital: they go everywhere and leave a constant trail of fresh airborne droplets and smudged out mucus containing viral particles. If another one picks it up, the cycle starts over again, ensuring another few days of the virus being spread. Etc.

On the other hand, if all workers are vaccinated, the spread is somewhat contained. The waiting room is not a good place to be, but since workers wash their hands between patients (or should wash them, anyway) and probably won't get infected themselves, the virus has far less chance to be spread. Surfaces carrying infected mucus become safe again within a few hours, hands carrying infected mucus become safe again even quicker - basically, the virus dies off pretty quickly if it doesn't get the chance to infect workers going around the hospital.

Rather than functioning as a source of further infection for several days, workers at most function as passive superficial carriers for a very limited amount of time. If you cannot see how that is vastly preferable to having infected people everywhere... ugh.

Yeah, because the flu definitely doesn't kill many thousands of people a year, and it's never happened before that a strain of H1N1 killed tens of millions of people... OH WAIT.

Fucking idiot :disgust