The COVID vaccine decreases the severity of the disease's symptoms. Regardless of the other benefits, isn't that enough reason to get it? Firing some nurse who gets their opinions from Dr. Oz and has crystals in their bedroom is a net positive for the healthcare system in my opinion. I want my healthcare practitioners to be people of science, who practice evidence-based medicine, and are willing to change their opinions on a dime based on the most recent studies. I'm certainly not the smartest person in the world, but I've met several healthcare providers in real life who have refused the vaccine and let's just say none of them gives off the air of a mental giant.

Do you understand how insane you sound saying things like "the covid vaccine experiment?" Like some doctors just cooked up some crazy cocktail in 45 minutes and started sticking people with it on the street? Please.

The vaccine isn't evidence-based science because it is experimental. You are part of a group of people who decided to take part and provide data. In 2024 when the first long term studies are due evidence-based medicine will begin. It is crazy you are unaware of this. Weren't you required to sign a form acknowledging these facts and allowing the government to become the custodial holder of these records?

On average the people not taking the vaccine are more tuned in, have more raw facts available and have made a serious decision by weighting the facts. Thinking that this group must be getting information from Dr Oz or some other political figure you are against and blinding following is shallow reasoning. They are not the part of society who would blindly follow what they heard on the news or what a popular figure thinks or what society thinks.

HN comments have really gone down hill in quality. I'm quite sick of reading the same tired talking points you put up over and over.

Your last ten comments are single sentences or something to enflame others or both. Are those the type of comments that are lacking?

For anything medical related it has always been like this.

This is what happens when 26 year old tech bros who type JavaScript into a computer for $300k a year forget that there are a lot of things about the real world they don't actually understand.

Anything related to medicine or non-IP law on HN is a dumpster fire.

Realistically, most things that are tech/tech adjacent are a dumpster fire.

The number of uninformed comments on inflation/monetary policy on here is exhausting.

Come on, that argument was valid for about two or three months.

Nowadays, the outcomes from the several distinct vaccines have given us ten times, a hundred times more data than needed for such decisions.

On average, people like you simply can't help mistake anecdotes for data.

Would you rather have a nurse who was a vaccine skeptic or no nurse? Honestly asking.

a 75 year old family member was prescribed Ivermectin for light Covid. I would rather no doctor. And family member has decided to seek a different doctor. Literally added a symptom.

Doctors and nurses are two different jobs.

Would you rather have a fireman who used a firehouse connected to a water source or a water hose skeptic who insisted on using an empty bucket?

That's a bad metaphor, given that the point in question (vaccination) isn't a treatment (water) at the time of severe infection.

Someone can simultaneously (a) be trained in critical care & (b) be a vaccine skeptic.

It's analogous to meteorologists who don't believe in climate change: yes, it's kooky, but it's also not the job they're doing.

No nurse. What other kind of bad advice will they give me?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there exist people who are vaccine skeptics and are trained to a higher skill in life support than I am.

I try not to judge people completely based on a single characteristic.

That makes it worse not better. If my wife were pregnant, I also wouldn’t have her go to a doctor who “didn’t believe in abortion” under any circumstances even if her life were in danger.

That's a strawman, because it's a directly impactful choice at the time of care.

How does a person's personal vaccination status, ceterus paribus, affect the care you're likely to receive?

Outside of, you know, directly asking them "Should I get vaccinated?" and being told "I wouldn't"?

> How does a person's personal vaccination status affect the care you're likely to receive?

Because it shows that they're not intellectually capable of making good medical decisions. The risk that the other medical decisions they will make are equally bad despite all evidence to the contrary increases.

As far as I've met people, there are three groups:

- Those who believe that anyone who doesn't vaccinate "isn't intellectually capable of making good medical decisions"

- Those who are opposed to vaccination because they believe in conspiracy theories

- Those who are are either pro- or anti- vaccination, but realize it's a complicated issue, with evidence-supported pros and cons, that other humans of reasonable intelligence can have different opinions than themselves about

Unfortunately, the first two groups tend to be the loudest and most religious about it.

Either way, just like I wouldn’t want a religious zealot who has convictions about performing an abortion while my wife is laying their bleeding, I wouldn’t trust the judgement of an anti-vaxxer.

One of my best friends who lived in Seattle whose wife did have complications during pregnancy. He told his doctor that in no uncertain terms if they had to make a choice between his wife and his unborn son, to save his wife’s life. They had to perform a c section early to save his wife. His son is healthy and thriving and he had a vasectomy soon after their child was born to not risk another pregnancy and they adopted a child.

He said in today’s climate. If he had lived in a state like Texas, he would have found another job and moved.

As the product of a reproductive therapy that certain people at one time would have banned, I can sympathize.

To me the big difference is whether they're "I should not be vaccinated" or "Everyone should not be vaccinated." The former doesn't always mean belief in the latter.

So I look at someone being unvaccinated more like choosing to wear a spinning propeller hat to work every day... it's weird, and it makes me judge you, but it doesn't necessarily impact your work.

As a health care professional, you choosing to be anti-vaxxer tells me a lot about your judgment in the field I’m seeking your expert advice and it probably means that you don’t care about coming to work with Covid and getting other people sick.

If you’re an anti vaxxer coworker, whatever. Your judgment about the vaccine doesn’t affect their ability to write good code. But if they were an Oracle fan…

That's a lot of assumptions about a person...

This is akin to my mechanic being anti oil change due to some conspiracy theories - I don't want them touching my car.

The car manufacturer states that the oil should be changed every 10k miles based on 100 years of research. The vaccine hasn't been through a long term study yet.

This feels biased. Why is catching a disease that kills some people not gambling? I can understand why some people were concerned about this being experimental in the first month after the vaccine distribution started a year ago, though the vaccine had been pretty well studied already. Other mRNA vaccines have existed for decades and had long term studies. At this point, we’ve now done a massive global study and the vaccine has been tested more thoroughly than nearly any other vaccine on the planet. Odds of death with vaccine vs without have been pretty well and conclusively established to go down in the short term, no? Are you expecting there to be some kind of sudden mass side effect years afterward?

"There are many valid reasons for not wanting to take part in the covid vaccine experiment."

I will just ignore the full three phase trials on volunteers, because I am an antivaxer.