COVID Designer viruses as vaccines: yea or nay?

[Drakkith]

This quote seems absurd to me. She put in a lot of work learning material useful in nursing, at a time when vaccines weren't required.

I don't know if vaccines are required, but this link from the American Nurses Association shows that vaccination is strongly encouraged at a minimum. To go into a career path while disagreeing with a major tenant of that career path suggests that she did not think things through well enough before spending years of her own time and potentially a large amount of her own money.

Then she's told it's their way or the highway - for a vaccine that offers no great assurance you won't be infected and spread the virus anyway.

A 50% effectiveness for a vaccine designed for a different variant is pretty good assurance in my opinion. And the 80-90% effectiveness for the original variant is about standard for a vaccine.

But if you want to try to convince me that getting a house toilet papered or some nasty Twitter posts is worse than having to take another year of school for something else, well, you guys can ride *that* bandwagon without my help.

Having to take another year of school because you CHOOSE not to take a certain career path is absolutely not an example of having something lorded over you. I made no comment on whether any of my examples were worse than having to take another year of school.

Let's put it this way: if our efforts are toward *stopping Covid transmission*, and they should be, then we should not interpose any false intermediates between our actions and that goal. It is like idolatry for epidemiologists! If we can make a reasonable assurance that someone is not infectious to the vulnerable people they tend to at the hospital, *by any means* -- preferably by reasonable inferences involving serum titers, or otherwise up to and including them exposing themselves to live Omicron virus under isolation if that's what it genuinely takes to prove they aren't more likely to pass it on to patients later -- then that is good enough.

Not allowing non-vaccinated nurses to work in a Covid infested hospital IS part of our best efforts at stopping Covid transmission. That's literally why the vaccination requirement exists.

Your argument here is that we circumvent this requirement as long as we don't put others at undo risk. Which in itself is fine. But like several people have pointed out, there are other factors to consider. The effectiveness of your proposed method is unknown, the time, money, and effort spent to implement it is unknown but unlikely to be negligible, there are issues with how this affects the day-to-day workplace during future outbreaks, and there are ethical issues to consider regarding letting people into a healthcare field when they openly don't fully support what that field considers to be reasonable measures to treat and prevent disease.

No one here is saying your idea is crap, is terrible, is the worst thing ever, that you're stupid for thinking of it, or anything like that. In fact I think it's very nearly reasonable. If we understood immunity a bit better and if testing was cheaper, easier, and more accurate then I think we could justifiably relax vaccine requirements in some fields for those who have already had the disease (assuming effective immunity lasts a significant amount of time of course).

 

[pinball1970]

Very interesting thread. An ethical landmine too!

Regarding the nurse refusing the vaccine.
We have had numbers of NHS workers refusing the vaccine when these are the professionals we LEAST expect to refuse it.
https://www.nursinginpractice.com/c...re-staff-could-refuse-mandatory-vaccinations/
https://www.rcn.org.uk/get-help/rcn-advice/covid-19-and-mandatory-vaccination

 

[pinball1970]

There was more but the link would not let me edit. Anyway I was surprised at the numbers and the fact the Government had gone back on it. Potentially that's 120,000 unvaccinated NHS staff.
So that involves staff working with immunocompromised patients? Premature babies? ICU staff.
That situation seems to make the original OP suggestion more palatable in terms of ethics.(tongue in cheek)

 

[Mike S.]

The effectiveness of your proposed method is unknown, the time, money, and effort spent to implement it is unknown but unlikely to be negligible, there are issues with how this affects the day-to-day workplace during future outbreaks

There are unknowns here, yes. But the vaccine also has unknowns. The flip side of all the unknowns is that there is research value. Yes, that sounds ugly when we speak of patients, but they're already in this global science experiment, and it's not like the Covid vaccine we have is a magic bullet that stops all transmission, and we could find out whether infection and serology has results worse or even possibly better than giving a vaccine and assuming it worked.

Similarly the flip side of "day to day workplace" issues if people don't all do exactly the same thing as they're told, is that you solve many of these other day to day workplace issues that come up when they don't.

and there are ethical issues to consider regarding letting people into a healthcare field when they openly don't fully support what that field considers to be reasonable measures to treat and prevent disease.

That sounds far too close to loyalty testing to me. It is one thing to require that they recommend vaccines to patients in accordance with professional medical practice, but to go over their behavior looking for signs of personal beliefs that are deemed subversive ... that's a very different can of worms. Keep in mind what a large proportion of our million American deaths could have been avoided if we had remained a more open society with more respect for freedom of expression -- a society where people would feel free to tell you exactly who in your workplace had Covid when, like they do in China -- and a society where movie cameras would roll footage in the emergency wards and ICUs where people were dying, so that nobody would get silly anti-vaccine notions in the first place! Our society beat people away from the vaccine and public health measures with cudgels, out of bureaucratic inertia and worries over "ethics", and now it tries to beat people back to the vaccine with more cudgels, as if that isn't going to go wrong also.

 

[hutchphd]

Our society beat people away from the vaccine and public health measures with cudgels, out of bureaucratic inertia and worries over "ethics", and now it tries to beat people back to the vaccine with more cudgels, as if that isn't going to go wrong also.

You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that this is delusional and I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Sorry.

/

 

[Drakkith]

and it's not like the Covid vaccine we have is a magic bullet that stops all transmission

It is the closest thing to a magic bullet that we have and it was very effective vs the variant it was designed for.

and we could find out whether infection and serology has results worse or even possibly better than giving a vaccine and assuming it worked.

This is already under investigation. The problem is that it takes time. Time which gives the virus the chance to spread and mutate.

That sounds far too close to loyalty testing to me. It is one thing to require that they recommend vaccines to patients in accordance with professional medical practice, but to go over their behavior looking for signs of personal beliefs that are deemed subversive ... that's a very different can of worms.

Doctor: "I recommend you get vaccinated."
Patient: "I've heard a lot of stuff about the vaccine that makes me worry. Are you vaccinated?"
Doctor: "No."
Patient: "..."
It's not about loyalty. It's about practicing what you preach and keeping patients and staff safe.

Keep in mind what a large proportion of our million American deaths could have been avoided if we had remained a more open society with more respect for freedom of expression -- a society where people would feel free to tell you exactly who in your workplace had Covid when, like they do in China -- and a society where movie cameras would roll footage in the emergency wards and ICUs where people were dying, so that nobody would get silly anti-vaccine notions in the first place!

I have no idea what you're getting at. Our society is far more open with far more freedom of expression than China.

Our society beat people away from the vaccine and public health measures with cudgels, out of bureaucratic inertia and worries over "ethics", and now it tries to beat people back to the vaccine with more cudgels, as if that isn't going to go wrong also.

Again, I don't know what you're getting at. Misinformation and how easy it spreads and is believed is the main reason a large number of people haven't had the vaccine or didn't get it as quickly as they otherwise would have. Bureaucratic inertia and worries over ethics had little to do with it in my opinion.

 

[Mike S.]

I have no idea what you're getting at. Our society is far more open with far more freedom of expression than China.

And yet, people at work can't tell you who had COVID in the office.

Freedom of expression has many dimensions and a society that does poorly in some ways does well in others. For another example, think of how vital Russia's involvement in Libgen and Sci-Hub have been, despite some of that country's other policies.

 

[Mike S.]

Doctor: "I recommend you get vaccinated."
Patient: "I've heard a lot of stuff about the vaccine that makes me worry. Are you vaccinated?"
Doctor: "No."

Suppose the doctor (or nurse) is one of the rare people who actually had a bad reaction to a vaccine - maybe an allergy, perhaps even a case of Guillain-Barre. Would you say that doctor should be fired also?

I'll say one thing - as a patient, I'd be a lot less taken aback by a nurse claiming a religious objection to a vaccine, perhaps because fetal cells were used in the research or something, than hearing somebody was at the brink of death from a potentially disabling disease.

 

[pinball1970]

Suppose the doctor (or nurse) is one of the rare people who actually had a bad reaction to a vaccine - maybe an allergy, perhaps even a case of Guillain-Barre. Would you say that doctor should be fired also?

I'll say one thing - as a patient, I'd be a lot less taken aback by a nurse claiming a religious objection to a vaccine, perhaps because fetal cells were used in the research or something, than hearing somebody was at the brink of death from a potentially disabling disease.

The Dr should still advise its safe, statistically, that is what the data is showing.

He is a professional and his personal experience should not come into it.
They do tell you all the risks at the vaccination centre and it also in the leaflet they give you

As I mentioned before, the ONE group of people who should trust to give you the best, latest and most objective data with respect to a treatment, drug or vaccine are the medical community.

When they tell you it is not safe then it is probably not safe.

Behind those guys are the scientific community who work all this stuff out and understand it better than anyone, you can trust them as well but its hard enough seeing ones GP these days.

 

[hutchphd]

Suppose the doctor (or nurse) is one of the rare people who actually had a bad reaction to a vaccine - maybe an allergy, perhaps even a case of Guillain-Barre. Would you say that doctor should be fired also?

Surprisingly I had Guillain-Barre five years ago and am triply vaccinated for COVID without incident. Science is our societal stepstone .
Your hypothetical nurse is free to be whomever she wishes as are we all in the home of the brave. She is not free to define societal norms of behavior according to her own "truth". Nor is anyone else. We are collectively allowed to "promote the general welfare" in a way that might impinge upon individual freedoms using due process. Freedom is not free.

/

 

[Drakkith]

Suppose the doctor (or nurse) is one of the rare people who actually had a bad reaction to a vaccine - maybe an allergy, perhaps even a case of Guillain-Barre. Would you say that doctor should be fired also?

Possibly. Perhaps temporarily moved to a different area of work if possible, or relegated primarily to something like video appointments where their risk of catching and transmitting the disease is minimal.

Note that there's a big difference between someone trying and being unable to do something versus someone refusing to do something. You can sometimes stay in the military for years while being unable to perform half of your duties if you've had an illness or injury that makes those duties impossible, but refusal will get you kicked out VERY quickly.

And yet, people at work can't tell you who had COVID in the office.

I doubt this. I'm a disabled vet who doesn't work, but my ex was constantly coming home and telling me that so-and-so at work contracted Covid and was going to be out for a few weeks. Of my close friends that I've talked to recently, most know who has had Covid at their work. My girlfriend's best friends also know who has had Covid at their work.

 

[pinball1970]

Possibly. Perhaps temporarily moved to a different area of work if possible, or relegated primarily to something like video appointments where their risk of catching and transmitting the disease is minimal.

Note that there's a big difference between someone trying and being unable to do something versus someone refusing to do something. You can sometimes stay in the military for years while being unable to perform half of your duties if you've had an illness or injury that makes those duties impossible, but refusal will get you kicked out VERY quickly.I doubt this. I'm a disabled vet who doesn't work, but my ex was constantly coming home and telling me that so-and-so at work contracted Covid and was going to be out for a few weeks. Of my close friends that I've talked to recently, most know who has had Covid at their work. My girlfriend's best friends also know who has had Covid at their work.

Same here (UK, my place of work at least) one of us gets it we let everyone know.
EDIT: and not because we have to.