Again, this needs to be something that someone decides in consultation with their doctor. Not an online forum, no matter how well informed and supportive the other posters are. I realize you weren’t implying anything to the contrary.
I will add that it makes sense to understand what institutions with informed medical expertise are requiring this fall. For instance, my kids’ university has mandated the vaccine with the exception of medical and religious reasons. Some of that is per state law, although not sure that applies to a private university (such as the ones my kids attend). The university follows the state public health department requirements; however, that department hasn’t mandated anything about the vaccine nor exceptions thereto. What is clear is that they recognize there may well be situations where someone can’t be vaccinated per medical advice. So while we can’t know everyone’s detailed medical history or whether they should or shouldn’t take the vaccine, at least we see that are medical experts who acknowledge that such people actually do exist. Venues for large gatherings - such as a wedding - should be able to make the same exceptions. The goal is to protect public health, not the health of each and every attendee. If the latter were actually the goal, they’d eliminate the bar service
You and your family members, apparently, have a different situation than my husband’s colleague.
This. Perhaps in our zeal to get everyone vaccinated we can easily forget that not everyone is exactly like us, nor do we know the full story of their health history.
Protecting such people through herd immunity is the reason why some seek to maximize vaccination of those who do not have medical reasons not to get vaccinated. If “society” (e.g. colleges, K-12 schools, those planning gatherings) did not care about protecting such people, nor people with weak immune responses to vaccines, then vaccination requirements (for any disease) would be less common.
Basically, the whole fight about vaccination requirements is about whom to prioritize: the medically vulnerable (those who medically cannot be vaccinated or do not derive sufficient protection from vaccination) who could be protected by herd immunity if enough other people were vaccinated, versus those who choose (for non-medical reasons) not to get vaccinated. Pick one.
my dear friend and cancer survivor had blood clots in her lungs this early spring before vaccines were readily available - was in ICU. All before J&J’s blood clots situations. I had never heard of that before, and then twice within several months. Anyways, her DR. said DO NOT GET A VACCINE. You’d think her family (hs kids) would all get a vaccine to protect her, but she is now deathly afraid of the vaccine and wants no one in her family to get one. It’s hard to make sense of this all; but i’m not going to judge this; my family and I are protected.
Actually, the vaccine requirements at universities are designed to maximize the protection of the faculty and administrators. So I’ve been told by those who are involved in the process of assessing whether a mandate is appropriate. So it really is the people in charge mandating something mainly to protect themselves. I believe that’s unheard of in the history of medical procedures, but perhaps you know of a different situation. Now, most of us are of the age where that protection makes sense, but we should be honest and admit that it’s about us more than it is those few “medically vulnerable.”
If the university employees are actually arguing that (inclusive of those who choose not to get vaccinated for non-medical reasons, as opposed to the small number of faculty and staff who actually are medically vulnerable), that is a specious self-serving argument, since if those who choose not to get vaccinated for non-medical reasons are prioritized, they should not expect others to get vaccinated to protect them.
But, if such specious arguments are cleared away, it still comes down to whom (among students, faculty, and staff) to prioritize, the medically vulnerable people, or those who choose not to get vaccinated for non-medical reasons. Pick one. (University employee unions’ stances on vaccination requirements for the represented employees will reveal which group among represented employees they prioritize.)
Meningitis vaccine is generally required for those living in the dorms to protect them against it, not the staff or faculty. Even MMR and Dtap are not required of faculty. Highly suggested? Yes. Until this year, I don’t think many schools were requiring flu shots.
When my kids went to school and lived in the dorms, one had a meningitis shot requirement and the other just the MMR. They of course had many more vaccinations in their lives, but one had an issue with her chickenpox vaccination series (always had) and the nurse reviewing the records said it wasn’t required, nor were many of the others. Her school was full of international students who may not have had the same childhood series that American children get.
We just had another prayer request from our church for a person who is now critically ill with Covid (only 61 years old). I can’t help but wonder if some are regretting their choice not to be vaccinated. I know a dominant thinking is, “God will protect me or if not, then it’s my time,” yet the same church has armed men conceal carrying. It makes me wonder why they feel God will protect them from Covid, or it’s their time to go, but God is unable to protect them from a mass shooter?
H and I have definitely decided we have to change churches. We’ve been leaning that way since about June, but today we decided it’s time after discussing a bit with our kids while they’re all home.
It remains that the medical procedure is primarily on behalf of others. My guess would be that many faculty, staff and admin would choose to get vaccinated. That doesn’t prevent them from wanting students vaccinated as well for “extra protection” and many faculty view it as a job safety issue. As I stated earlier, this seems unprecedented to compel someone to undertake a medical procedure so that someone else benefits.
The flu shot will probably be the next requirement from all the universities.
Not sure which state this is, but not all states had open access to the vaccine till relatively recently. The vaccine series is lengthy till you reach “fully vaccinated” (as we all know) and it’s possible to catch Covid during or immediately before that time and on occasion fall very ill from it. In other words, not everyone gets ill from Covid because they refused a vaccine. Not everyone shares their decision process either (although apparently many do).
One thing I’ve noticed - as has WaPo - is that the death rates have been declining very slowly since mid-April when the vaccine started to become widely available throughout the country. Hopefully that’s just due to the lagged effect. But right now it appears as if large-scale vaccination hasn’t really moved the needle on the death rate. Now, that’s likely to be by choice because the evidence is overwhelming that you stand an extremely low chance of being hospitalized if you are fully vaccinated (in MN it was something like 10 in 1200 from Jan-Apr). But does it also mean that the large majority who responsibly went and got vaccinated over the past six weeks weren’t likely to die from Covid to begin with? Maybe they were wearing masks, washing hands, social distancing, and/or were at low risk due to underlying health, age, or ethic/racial background. We don’t know yet.
That’s not the case at the college where I work, at the colleges my spouse and I attended, or our children’s colleges. The communications from all of them stress that they’re part of the surrounding community and remind us that they have a responsibility to the people who live there.
So the official line is that a vaccine mandate is for the good of everyone but the unofficial line is that it’s for the good of the faculty and administration.
I guess that would be hard to prove or even to get those in charge to admit.
To move off that subject.
Maybe I’m interpreting things incorrectly but as far as who can’t get the vaccine, it’s up to individual doctors to decide if their patients can get the vaccine. But other than those allergic to ingredients in the vaccine, the CDC is not giving guidance as to who can’t get the vaccine?
We hear that certain cancer patients or those with autoimmune disease should not get the vaccine but other physicians say that those patients absolutely should get it as they are especially vulnerable.
It’s sounds like there is no hard and fast rule who shouldn’t get the vaccine. Or maybe I’m missing something. I understand those who say that they know someone who can’t get the vaccine, but decline to say what exactly the person is suffering from. Which is really fine and I understand but it’s hard to find a definitive answer.
I guess I wish there was a black and white answer. But life isn’t always black and white, is it?
I think that’s the case. If you’ve met one person with a weird and unique set of health problems, you’ve met one person with a weird and unique set of health problems. Doctors tend not to “tell” people what to do - they give advice. People who trust their doctor’s judgement will usually follow that advice.
ETA: if there is an ingredient you have had a severe reaction to in the past, you shouldn’t inject it into your system. So that one probably is a hard and fast rule; however, it doesn’t necessarily rule out all vaccines (or even other vaccines for the same purpose).
Because contagious diseases cause negative externalities, vaccination against any of them (not just COVID-19) is something that benefits others as well as the person getting the vaccination.
So it is hardly “unprecedented” like you claim for schools to require vaccinations (even if you do not like such requirements) to cause the school cohort to have herd immunity to protect the medically vulnerable (who medically cannot get vaccinated or who do not get good immunity).
Yes, but in the case of other vaccines the person is equally protected from an adverse outcome. Here the primary reason would be to protect others, since the incidence of adverse outcomes for younger people is significantly more uncommon. My kids’ school was honest: it’s to prevent clusters of outbreak, protect those in the community at risk of serious disease, and protect the surrounding community. Why have these reasons? Well, because 1) outbreaks will shut down in-person learning and possibly re-impose testing; 2) faculty and admin are just plain at higher risk of serious disease but not currently under their own mandate; and 3) the surrounding community is a high risk population that, incidentally, has a low vax rate. Nothing about how the vaccine benefits each student (and it’s not like they don’t have a good year of data on Covid outcomes for the college age crowd). It’s pretty clear: the vaccine mandate is primarily about protecting others. Note that this doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. We just need to be accurate and honest about the reasons.
Conservative pastor who claimed that the vaccine was a conspiracy to commit vast genocide (with the upside that “a lot of stupid people will be killed off”) has been hospitalized with COVID. His associates have made a public “urgent request” for prayers for his recovery.
It’s one thing to decline the vaccine for legitimate reasons (for that matter, even for ignorant reasons). But people like this who influence large numbers of people can be very dangerous.
I’d like to think this experience will humble this man, but more likely, his recovery will simply provide more “evidence” that the covid risk has been greatly exaggerated.
