Forum Asst. Chief
Two, in my opinion. 1. Unvaccinated patients expose me to an infectious disease far more than would be otherwise required, both in terms of absolute cases and average associated viral load. 2. In a setting where suboptimal care is being delivered due to a lack of staff/resources/beds/whatever, I would like to prioritize those who actually want my help. If you didn't want my (more broadly medicine/science's help) with prophylaxis, why do you want it when you're actually sick? I see a perverse irony in refusing the vaccine on whatever grounds because of unknown composition/long term effects/whatever then coming to the hospital begging for monoclonal antibodies/remdesivir/etc. with arguably less data and a murkier safety profile than vaccines.but there is a good reason to discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated?
1. Indeed. So shouldn't we take any necessary precaution to reduce risk? Like hi-vis vests at MVAs or some agencies push ballistic vests.1) our job is risky. medical providers have caught diseases from patients (this example comes out of NYC). medical providers have been killed at MVAs. as well as been shot, on medical calls.
2) No, for several reasons. The first reason is the vaccinated can still catch and spread covid. that's not my opinion, that's a documented fact. Secondly, do you remember back in EMT class where we were taught to treat everyone as infectious? which was why we wear gloves for every patient? So if someone has HIV/AIDS, that isn't a reason not to treat them, because you should treat everyone as infectious, and protect yourself appropriately? Furthermore, if you want to protect yourself from those who "actively choose to make your life miserable," I'm not stopping you. Wear an n95 your entire shift, as well as safety glasses. wash your hands, and wear gloves. Take the precaution you deem appropriate. However, their personal decisions doesn't mean you can use it as an excuse not to do your job, regardless of what your thoughts are about said decisions.
2. Yes, the vaccinated can still catch and spread covid. However, the vaccinated spread it a much lower rate than the unvaccinated. This is quite clear in Delta and preceding strains; omicron has somewhat negated this benefit, but preliminary data still suggests some benefit in vaccination to reducing transmissibility. You again go back to "use it as an excuse not to do your job". I have made it clear, and will again, that I am not raising these points in the context of my job. Obviously, my job requires me to treat everyone. However, I can do my job professionally while holding different personal ideological views. My question to you is: Is it morally/ideologically wrong to deny treatment on the basis of vaccination status? Not legally, or practically, or because you're bound by the condition of being employed, but ideologically.
I think the intent of my message was clear, but if you want to be pedantic, sure, you're right. The guy with a GSW who happens to test positive for Covid on admission is not who I'm talking about, because Covid did not bring this patient to the hospital.That was your line in the sand. I provided examples. the "real subject" was you choose not to treat those who were unvaccinated. Now, if you want to clarify that you won't treat covid+ patients who are unvaxxed, that might make it a strawman, but that wasn't what you said, and the EM treats all type of issues (and with the omicron variant being prevalent, it's likely your GSW vic will test covid+).
You're describing the flu vaccine. You get a "booster" every year.Great post/reply, especially your point about whether or not the vaccine is truly a vaccine if multiple boosters are required.