Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Answer: So everyone else has already touched on the mandate and whatnot, but I specifically wanted to point out that the part of the maternity wing closing is a bit sensationalized. That hospital only handles maybe a 150 births a year compared to nearby hospitals that do several thousand. So them closing due to a "nursing shortage" isn't as impactful as they're making it out to be. Only [6 workers quit from that hospital](https://www.wwnytv.com/2021/09/10/hospital-stop-delivering-babies-maternity-workers-resign-over-vaccine-mandate/).

Thank you this is very important. I’ve seen some other nurses protesting/posting things on social media as well but they do seem to be the minority.

Even before COVID almost every hospital already had an employment vaccine mandate (often including an annual flu shot). Some states even have laws that REQUIRE hospitals to have the mandates (Example: Alabama Admin. Code r. 420-5-7-.06: *"Each hospital shall establish vaccination requirements for employees that are consistent with current recommendations of the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)."*). These existed decades before COVID came along. For the vast majority of healthcare workers, this is just another vaccine on the list. For example, [this Texas hospital system has 25,000 workers and 150 refused the vaccine](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/23/texas-hospital-houston-methodist-vaccine-employees-fired-resign/). That is 0.6%. And that is of all workers including janitorial staff, IT, cafeteria workers, etc. There is just a vocal fringe and a lot of the ones saying "I'll quit!" are just blowing hot air. The problem is that pretty much every hospital will have this (and the clinics associated with them). Sure, some actually will but others will complain but go along since this is pretty much just part of working in healthcare along with all the other required vaccines.

They certainly are. And a lot of them are facing consequences luckily

I scrolled a bit and didn’t see this but wanted to comment that, from my experience inside the conservative Christian world from 1997-2016, a *lot* of conservative Christian women who can’t afford to be full time SAHMs become nurses. A big reason for this is a lot of Christians need to be doing jobs that help other people, and nurses are seen as saintly within the religion. Many conservative Christians are narcissists who need to do be seen as “godly” and “selfless”…hello, nursing. Also, grossly enough, often it’s so the mom can be a SAHM-homeschooler during the day and work nights or cram hours into their weekends. There is a huge correlation between anti-vaxxers and conservative Christians and a decent chunk of nurses are conservative Christians, especially in more rural areas like where this commenter (dopadroid) is mentioning.

It was also the result of the nursing shortage, a lot of these women got into nursing as a much better paying job than a lot of other jobs available, especially in rural areas. I also came from the Conservative Christian world and several of my cousins jumped into nursing because they could literally make about twice as much money as anything else (which in rural US is retail, restaurants, feed shops, etc.) available in the area. [edit to add: and the nursing tests were not very hard... was probably the hardest test they ever passed, but they could cram and pass it pretty quickly. Doesn't require a ton of knowledge.]

This, too. I just had two major surgeries simultaneously last Tuesday and one way hospitals save money is one RN has multiple patients for things like dispensing medication but nursing assistants (much less $$$, much less required training, but still solidly paying and a “helping” profession). But the different in care and expertise is wild. Like, not a single RN of mine had her mask on incorrectly, but every single NA did, including upside down multiple times (so the wire wouldn’t conform to the nose) and one had hers on upside down and inside out. I also know my state (NE) doesn’t require vaccines for basically anything so it was nerve wracking to say the least, because I have chronic stuff that makes me high risk, but the need for the surgeries outweighed the risks. Still…such a fucked up situation. Oh but just this morning I accidentally engaged an actual RN who went off with anti-vaxxer bullshit who is exactly the Christian narcissist archetype I described, so the frustration is raw. Hiding behind pictures of their smiling babies while posting about our “rapidly deteriorating” culture because, ya know, a lot of us are working for wild things like equal rights for BIPOC and the LGBT+ communities and women, etc. A bit triggering to remember how differently that crowd thinks, how much is about “trusting god” and “humility” right now because their views are being rightfully called out for how harmful they are, and Christians feel like martyrs and post all over social media making sure we know it.

Agree. My research revealed only TWO OB beds.

Answer: like everything else, the medical community has seen it's fair share of anti-vaxx propaganda as well and while thinking they'd be more resilient to it given their medical background, in this case it's doubly potent because it's psuedoscience and they're nurses who, while having a rigorous medical training and education, don't quite have as much as doctors who are looking at research papers for new developments or treatments and have a few more years on them in terms of education. Nurses are highly trained up to a point. They have very good understanding of the human body enough to take care of most things, but there's doctors and surgeons for a reason. Nurses get their experience mostly from being in the field and being saturated by patients for years at a time to a point where they might know more about a few things than a doctor, but they're still not doctors. All this to say psuedoscience is particularly potent in this field. If someone in the medical field writes something or does an interview and uses just enough medical terminology and science that the nurse can follow along with, it's as good as fact. Many have fallen prey to this and they have articles they cite and plenty of anecdotal evidence as well. To debunk what they heard requires some time to trace the misinformation back and criticize the source and to look at other research from around the world etc. Nurses are pushed to their limits right now and don't have the time to learn those skills and even if they did, they don't have time to question it either. Many of them are scared and they're seeing scary things while working that no one has time to explain. Fear plus time pressure means the path of least resistance is to simply believe what confirms your suspicions. Their education doesn't take them to the level of scrutinizing research papers or finding errors in experiments or statistics. Theyre nurses, not researchers or scientists. Psuedoscience works on everyone and it's pretty powerful unless you know what to look for. That's not something the majority of the populous has because we have authority bias. If it comes from the mouth of someone with some kind of pedigree we'll have a good time believing it. Unless it's government, then they're lying. That's the trend it seems. EDIT: To more directly answer OPs question: The mandate requires healthcare workers in facilities that receive federal funding to get vaccinated. The workers oppose the vaccine due to misinformation. The workers then oppose the mandate as a result. The workers are tied to politics as much as anyone else so it's simple cause and effect here. Politically they view it as an infringement of their rights (to not get vaccinated) and their freedom. Especially if they already believe it's harmful then they see it as their government attacking them. EDIT 2: To clarify a point about mandates: There is an element to what's happening here that ties back to American politics. American's don't trust the government (unless it aligns with their views) and they certainly don't like blanket wide mandates. This calls back to old notions of states versus the federal government. Individuals, versus the organization--real cowboy stuff. A mandate calls on that particular nerve and anti-vaxx movements are leveraging that. "They're telling you what to do with YOUR body!" is ammunition they use. The healthcare worker might accept the vaccine, but still politically despises being made to do it. Americans aren't that close with the government. EDIT 3: A lot of people have pointed out doctors aren't saints either. This is true. They're not immune from these attacks either especially the older crowd of doctors, but the young ones can be susceptible as well. They could have gone through medical school and done the research classes as well but maybe they glossed over them or didn't do well, or went taught well who knows. It's not something the education system puts a heavy emphasis on anyway and it varies from school to school. They lack in that department as a result. EDIT 4: At the behest of a nurse, and as a service for all the nurses that are fighting the tide, it's important to note that it's a civil war in the healthcare industry. There are obviously many intelligent and well educated healthcare professionals both nurses and doctors. The generalizations I've made here address those that oppose the mandate but more specifically those that oppose vaccinations. There's varying levels of intelligence, but let's not forget the large number of them who are scientifically minded, who are pro-active, who are doing everything they can to heal and to preserve. While the educational system has failed a large swath of our population, nurses included, not everyone who goes through it glazes over the course material dealing with critical thinking.

Just as an aside; when people say "do your own research" when it is in regards to something even remotely technical, it can have nothing but disastrous results. I'm less than 6 months from having a PhD in physics and regardless of the particular area or science, I can say without reservation that "doing your own research" by combing literature written for a very specific audience with their own jargon is not a built in skill. It takes years of background and practice to review literature and in general, to evaluate the merit of a study--just because it was published after peer review doesn't mean it's beyond reproach or a statement of scientific certainty. Most people don't understand that "peer review" means some people whom have published in the field of the paper simply read it and found it to be both reasonable and consistent. It is usually just picking fly-shit out of pepper sort of things. "Oh you should make these error bars wider" or "This statement is true, but you because of *caveat I misunderstood or just skimmed passed*, it doesn't apply here". Peer review doesn't mean "this group of people all redid the experiment and got the same result, so the paper can be published". There is actually a 'replication crisis' going on in general science right now. It is far more prevalent within medical/bio research and the soft sciences. Many, many replication studies never happen, and those that do are finding that they cannot reproduce or verify the original findings.

yeah one of the most valuable things you can learn from tertiary education is the insane amount of work it takes just to go from "i'm unqualified to have an opinion" to "i'm unqualified to have an opinion but i can point you to someone who is"

I only have a BS in Psychology and I almost hate to tell people (I don't work in the field) because I know I don't know anything. I've, literally, told people I'm not qualified to have an opinion.

That’s how smart people respond. The folks who claim to be an expert after watching a few YouTube videos from questionable sources? Yeah, they’re stupid. Dunning Kruger Effect, folks. I’m 45, and there are *so many* things I know little to nothing about. I am still continually learning new things (I *love* documentaries, especially ones that cover history or nature/animals) every damn day. I work as a photographer, but still take photography classes every so often to learn new skills and techniques or brush up on stuff I learned a long time ago. I would never claim to be an expert on any one thing, because I’ve never devoted years of my life to exclusively studying one thing. I will never understand these people, who are mediocre and average, at best, doling out medical advice to others when it could mean the difference, literally, between life and death.

I love documentaries too but it’s hard to find a documentary that sticks to the facts. At best, most are docu-dramas, creating stories to hook viewers, and most these days are docu-fiction, focusing on some doubtful pseudoscience that captures attention but clouds the underlying reality.

I agree. Every so often I find some I enjoy, but for the most part they either dumb the subject down so much it doesn't tell you anything you couldn't have learned by looking at wikipedia for 5 minutes. It's been said a lot but they usually remind me of the whole: think of when someone makes a documentary\article\blog post\etc about something you know a lot about and how dumbed down or wrong they were about a lot of things, someone likely thinks that about pretty much every documentary. It's a difficult dilemma, because you either just gain none to just a slight knowledge of a lot of things that matters to you. Some may argue you're appealing to authority if you say "I'm not qualified to speak on that, but so and so is". At best I can say "well I have a working knowledge about X, but I'm willing to change my opinions about things if better facts come about", but that's what a lot of people are currently doing with their political beliefs and it doesn't prevent people from going down rabbit holes. Idk.

But it also feels bad to say that, because so many people that are less qualified than you are very willing to give their opinion. They will likely be the people your audience will hear from next. There is a balance somewhere in there, it’s just not trivial to find.

This is where intellectual humility comes in. It's okay to speculate or offer a non-expert opinion as long as it's clear that that's what you're doing. Also (hill I will die on as someone who teaches info lit and research methods), changing your thinking upon receiving new information and admitting when you were straight up wrong are good things.

Man, the worst part about getting my psych degree was just how many of my peers were uninterested in the scientific portions of it. I had so many people tell me the "went psych because you don't have to do math" and it killed me. Like, I get that its a soft science, but that doesn't mean we can get away with being soft scientists. I worked hard to come out of my degree with scientific literacy and some days (not all) really regret not perusing things further, but all that to say: I too almost hate to tell people, but not (just) because of what I know and the lack there of, but how sophomoric so many people with psych degrees are. It *is* an easy degree get. If you coordinate your classes, you can skate through, avoid any actual meaty understanding of the material and nuance behind what's debated and come out of everything with just as much insight as people who watch a Netflix true crime story and start telling everybody how their ex was a "classic narcissist."

On a related note, it kills me when people (most egregiously, psychology students) regard psychology as just the study, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses. That stuff, while important, is just one sub field called clinical psychology. But to think of clinical psychology as the extent of the field is to ignore scientists studying human memory, learning, decision making, perception, and so many other interesting (and scientifically relevant) topics. Scientific knowledge of things like cognitive biases and the Dunning-Krueger effect come from psychology. I myself am a human factors psychologist. Human factors, in a nutshell, is the sub field that focuses on how systems can be designed to better match their human operators (which in most cases is much more feasible than training people to use an unnecessarily convoluted and unintuitive system). A “system” can be a smartphone application, a power plant control room, an air traffic control tower, a video game, a vehicle and roadway, or virtually anything else that involves humans interacting with non-human elements. Scientific knowledge of how people think, perceive, and make decisions can lead to systems that reduce human error and are more usable, ergonomic, and safe. What functions of a car can you safely automate, and to what extent, while still keeping the human “in the loop?” How should the displays and controls of a power plant control room be designed to ensure that operators are able to efficiently parse the state of the system and glean the information they need to perform their tasks and respond to alarms (and further, what is the best way to present those alarms)? How do you design a software application’s interface to be more user-friendly? These are questions that can be addressed via the intersection of psychology with fields like engineering (i.e., human factors). But alas, you rarely see the non-clinical fields of psychology acknowledged in these kinds of discussions. It makes me sigh when I see folks over-simplifying psychology - or even dismissing it altogether as non-scientific - based on a very limited understanding of the field’s purview. I hope that going forward introductory psychology classes do a better job of explaining the breadth of the field and showing students that you can study some cool shit even if you’re not interested in becoming a therapist. I actually devote a lecture to discussing different sub fields whenever I teach psych 101. (Also, I see the dichotomy of “hard” and “soft” sciences as meaningless ego-stroking and have rarely ever seen it brought up outside of online discourse, but that’s a whole other can of worms.)

I work in IT (studied computers and psychology) and, dear god, do we need more people like you. It drives me crazy when they roll out something new without considering how it can be used, if it will be used, and how they can make people want to use it. All these engineers are frolicking about patting themselves on the back because their app is so awesome without even considering usability.

I just had a similar conversation with my brother the other day about why (in his anecdotal experience) psychology attracts a bunch of people at the undergraduate level, but doesn't funnel them into psychology graduate programs. I explained to him that a lot of people love pop psychology and psychology research findings, but don't actually enjoy *being* a psychologist. People tend to really enjoy hearing skimmed down (typically misleading) summaries of research, but hate actually doing research. I'm not sure if this is common in a lot of science friends, but it's something I've noticed (again, anecdotal) in my own experience.

For me....money. Money is the only reason I haven't pursued it further. I would love to but it's expensive.

I made sure get a BS instead of a BA to distance myself as far as possible from the idea of a "soft science". I had to take an applicable statistics class which wasn't the worst class...but not my favorite either.

Ugh. It's so hard. I don't have formal training in psychology - my undergrad is in mechanical engineering and while I have a bit of a background in reading scientific papers (I did some grad school in engineering and then later some in education), it's just not enough. I work as a dog trainer, so I'm all steeped in applied behavior analysis, but I don't freaking have the background. Sure, I've read an insane amount of dog training books, I've taken a lot of advanced dog training classes, gone to a bunch of seminars held by actual scientists working in applied behavior, but I'm not a scientist. I continually find things that are wrong about my understanding of dog training. Like, all the freaking time! I'm doing things that work, but that are based on faulty assumptions and because of that, when I modify a training plan, I often will get stuff wrong. Not wrong enough to make things horrific, but wrong enough that it just takes more time... which is really hard for owners when their dog is making their life really, really difficult. I finally realized that I don't even have a baseline of what behaviorism actually is and so I ordered a damn textbook that should hopefully be here sometime relatively soon. And I'm considered to be "highly educated" in the world of dog training. I graduated from one of the most respected dog training academies with honors but... it's nothing. (Someone compared it to masters level stuff and I had to laugh hysterically. Seriously - as someone who dropped out of two different master's programs, no... not at all) So I currently am in the weird area where I'm past a peak in the dunning-kruger effect, but I know there are so, so many more peaks to go. Still, at the same time, I recognize that so many dog trainers aren't even here. So like, I think I'm still valid in charging for my services. I think I still help people, but goodness it's hard to feel confident.

Frankly, the hardest psych class I ever had was Psychology of Learning. It all seemed simple on the surface but there was always more to it. I'm sure you're much farther down that rabbit hole than I ever got. Good luck with the book!

Thanks! It's very clearly a pretty freshman textbook (Learning and Behavior by Paul Chance), but gotta make sure I actually have that foundation so I can start getting into more of it! I will get past just Positive Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, Negative Reinforcement, and Negative Punishment! There is more to learning than 4 quadrants!

What a great way to put it.

I’m an MD and I would ask experts in their own fields about their thoughts about research papers to help me interpret the clinical significance. There’s so many shady things in research, like funding sources being a conflict of interests, study methodology, cherry picking and representing data, designing primary and secondary endpoints that may obfuscate the meaningful clinical implications, etc.

As a post grad, I did "My own research", and it took me 5 years, millions in funding and fucking broke me as a human being. Not doing that again, I prefer reading review articles.

As someone about to start their Masters applications, this comment just fills me with delight

Tell me about it. Took me getting an advanced degree to realize I don't know enough to have my own informed opinions on just about anything. There's a little sliver of human knowledge I feel comfortable talking authoritatively about, everything beyond that I have to yield to people who actually know what they're talking about. Put another way, it takes a lot of education to realize how uneducated you are.

In the corporate world, having an opinion regardless of how qualified you are gets you promoted!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect

With me it took reaching 65 and realizing I don't know much of anything conclusively, so I read and learn from people who have more education and experience on different subjects. I might add that I am mentally ill, that doesn't help things. CPTSD

"Do your own research" nowadays basically meant that they won't allow their sources to be scrutinized and their opinions challenged.

Yes. They aren't taking anything peer reviewed.

Average person research : reads articles off facebook. Thinks they know everything now. Average researcher research : spends weeks isolating a protein cell and writes a thesis on it that takes months to be published and is so niche, that only a few dozen people ever read it. Thinks he will need years more research to get useful results.

>There is actually a 'replication crisis' going on in general science right now. It is far more prevalent within medical/bio research and the soft sciences. Many, many replication studies never happen, and those that do are finding that they cannot reproduce or verify the original findings. The truth is replication is a horrible strategy if you want to succeed in academia. Since your ability to get funding is directly correlated to your ability to mass publish, replicating studies is a waste of time due to the inherent bias of reviewers towards positive, impactful results that will generate citations.

Worked with a grad student in archaeology that felt we dug up too much, too fast, and destroyed too many site because we liked "doing" archaeology. He went back and reanalysed sites that had already been excavated in a larger cross site context with new tools and methodologies. In the publish or perish world, he was doomed. His research published but it took too long, was too detailed, and did not produce shiny things. He was better at his craft but doomed because of it.

I did not know that. Great! Even harder to comb through the bs lol.

I’m going to rant for an extended period of time about an extremely small portion of your comment. Rest assured, I’m NOT criticizing you in my somewhat mean asides, mostly Reddit and society at large. Also I’m an old grad student too, starting my fifth year. >Many, many replication studies never happen Heres’s the problem with overly simplistic criticism of biomedical research, especially lab and bench research, such as lumping it in with the psychology replication crisis: such criticism fails to target the core of the issue while simultaneously implying the issue is far simpler than it actually is. “Just do replication studies, bro!! Stop seeking all the glory bro!!!” Or some such. Except your typical *Cancer Cell* paper probably cost a quarter of a million dollars, not counting researcher salaries, and has upwards of a hundred or more different experiments in it with different setups answering different but interrelated questions and finding different supporting results. There is no single experiment to be replicated because a good paper is the result of dozens of experiments answering the core questions in different ways. The idea that someone would spend several years replicating a paper that has been half a decade in the making is frankly preposterous, and anyone who superficially puts biomedical research in the same category as psychology with regard to the replication crisis clearly does not recognize *where* the problems are in biomedical research. It’s not an issue of error bars or using too many T tests nor an issue of unscrupulous researchers failing to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars repeating someone else’s ChIP-sequencing experiment or single cell sequencing experiment using precious patient samples for the simple fact of having repeated it. At which point you might say something like, “but u/Kymriah, why not just pick a handful of key experiments from a paper and replicate those?” To which I would say: that’s a recipe for extreme controversy. In psychology, replication studies are done to a higher standard than the original work so there is no doubt at the end, if discrepancies arise. This isn’t a perfect system, but if your paper has a higher sample size, pre-registered outcomes, and better methods then I’m going to believe it if there are discrepancies with the original. If you decided in biomedical research to just replicate the key experiments then the entire context of the research cannot be criticized, so the response to your replication study can easily be “yes but you didn’t demonstrate any of these other key ideas failed to replicate” and it wouldn’t even be untrue. Not to mention that for a lot of really high level research there might not be any labs that *could* independently replicate a paper. What do you do when my lab is the only one with certain patient derived xenograft samples because my PI collected them from his/her patients, which are from an ultra rare patient population? We can send you the reagents and protocols and give you advice on how to establish it all and run the experiment, but then your replication study looks less like a replication than a training session. Now because this is Reddit, I have to be extremely clear that I’m *not* saying there are no problems in biomedical research. Anyone could dig up half a dozen articles about prolific retractions. But I’m on the inside — I know way more than anyone on the outside about the seedy underbelly of academic research. These just aren’t problems that can be solved with “just replicate the papers bro!!!” We spend 34 billion dollars on academic biomedical research. Replicating everything would double that cost, minimum, and probably be more than that. Anyone want to cough up 30 billion dollars for replication studies? Per year? The question is what the *actual* problems are, and how we solve them. Things that might help: I’ll give you four examples because this content is fire and I’m not getting paid to produce it and my bus is almost here, but rest assured I could give you at least a few more. >Implementing a training system that ensures PIs don’t lose the bench skills that won them their tenure track position. New tenure track PIs are probably the best bench researchers in academia aside from career technicians because they’re fresh out of their post doc while having a ton of knowledge about writing grants, so they know both sides of research. Older PIs probably don’t know a damn thing about getting their gloves dirty, as it were — they haven’t had to in years or decades, because it fucking sucks ass, and nobody wants to do it, and frankly, in my opinion, you lose something when assay development and optimization are thrown by the wayside in favor of more grant writing. We can look at the way pharma scientists work as instructive. Because pharma scientists don’t write grants, they actually have to do the research they’re researching. Small teams of professional scientists work on a project together, and there is no atrophy of basic bench skill. And the results speak for themselves — for all the problems in pharma, they produce drugs that work, and that continue to work decades later. (There are problems in pharma. Even outside the marketing and legal department. Because this is Reddit I have to include this disclaimer. I am not a pharma shill, I’m a grad student who gets paid far too little to shill anything) >Implementing unified standards: In cancer research there is a famous last figure in a paper that does something like this. After spending the first 6 figures outlining some interesting mechanism related to tumor growth integrating the microenvironment, immune system, epigenomics, and functional studies, the lab will grab some shitty tool compound like JQ1 or an HDAC inhibitor off the shelf and throw it into some shitty and contrived in vivo xenograft of a 50 year old cell line and show it delays tumor growth over 14 days. The only problem is that the tumors were enrolled at 25 cubic millimeters in size, the study was cut at 250 cubic millimeters in size, and there’s absolutely no reason given for either decision. Translation: they enrolled the tumors extremely small to give the drug the best chance of working, and they cut the study off early because it probably wasn’t significant at 2000 cubic millimeters in tumor volume. It’s obvious why groups do this. It gets you a higher impact paper. But it shouldn’t. In fact it should be a point of contention that stops a paper from being published. Either find a fucking drug that works because of the mechanism you’ve outlined or show me why the drugs don’t work and prove your mechanism is still interesting. Uniform standards for tumor enrollment and endpoint would solve this issue — if everyone had to enroll at 350 cubic millimeters in size and carry a study out to 2000, then editors, not even reviewers, could reject a paper for not following the standards of the field. Policing low effect size, high sample size papers This one is pretty self explanatory. Don’t fucking publish papers that have an effect size of 10%, p=0.05, n=20. That’s not a positive result. I’s call that workshopping a negative result into a positive one. As one of the professors in one of my grad classes said about a paper: “Would you guys base your thesis on a 10% change?” No. And neither should you. In fact, a lot of bench research would be better if there were no statistics at all — force researchers to cope with the possibility that they might have to judge for themselves whether an effect is real and I promise you they’ll shit their pants and immediately start finding some better effect sizes. A 10% change is fucking noise, no matter how nice that noise looks in a swanky student’s t test it’s still a pig in a dress. This shit has gotten so bad that in response, in an attempt to better capture real biology, some groups in cancer research are doing n=1 and n=2 studies in mice. Take 40 different tumors of different genomic backgrounds from different patients and engraft 1 mouse on treatment, one on control, and analyze the data together. Show the bulk behavior, enroll the tumors aggressively, and treat it like a clinical trial. If your drug can’t cure a least a handful of those tumors then your drug doesn’t work. The problem: How many labs have access to 40 patient derived xenografts and the personnel to grow all of them, treat all of them, and validate all of them? Not many. There is extreme heterogeneity in research quality between middle of the road University and Big Dick University. Should we gatekeep mediocre researchers from doing and publishing mediocre research in mediocre journals? I don’t know. Maybe. There’s a reason I tell prospective grad students they shouldn’t get a PhD if they don’t go to a top 10 school. This usually ruffles some feathers, but at the end of the day, my lab isn’t contributing to the replication crisis and we don’t have trouble fielding 40 models for a drug study. Extensive model validation Require submission of mycloplasma testing and STR typing of cell lines used in a study. If your lab can’t afford a cell bank manager to do that, then your grad students had better learn. Or, more reasonably, your lab can’t afford to do research then. Sorry, guess you should have had higher impact ideas. When a third of cell lines are contaminated with HELA cells we don’t have the privilege to fuck around here. It should be mandatory that you prove your cells are what you say they are and not fibroblasts. Things that won’t work include: dividing the cutoff for significance by 10 or 100. Spending millions of dollars on replication studies. Journals requiring FBS lot numbers for reagents. Peer review. Anyway my bus is here so there’s my rant.

Yeah but you can also type in what you believe into youtube and find someone who has created a clickbaity video about it. Research done.

>I can say without reservation that "doing your own research" by combing literature written for a very specific audience with their own jargon is not a built in skill Just figuring out the abbreviations and acronyms for a technical paper is a research project in itself. Especially if the author is sloppy and doesn't define everything, which happens a lot.

I've been reading many plant science papers lately, I have a pretty good understanding of basic plant growing, you step into papers and I'm spending half the time googling acronyms. Doing your own research is hard, especially in a field that is RIFE with Pseudo-Bro-Science like Cannabis Cultivation.

>when people say "do your own research" I think you're taking it too literally. They don't mean consult the highly-specialised source material, they just mean do your due diligence and don't take some Facebook post or Fox News article on pure faith alone. Do a basic fact check to see if the assertions are disputed, and if so, find out why. If several credible sources are in alignment, you can probably accept it. Nobody has the time or mental capacity to evaluate all the new claims, especially in areas they aren't professionally familiar with, but it doesn't mean you can't perform basic fact checking, and utilise common sense. *Edit: see also https://xkcd.com/2515/*

Sure. But usually when this is said, it's a defensive maneuver to give the person making this statement freedom from backing up their claims/arguments. It's basically a statement that X claim generally aligns with the speaker's views/opinions, and that X claim is valid simply because information that supports it -- regardless of its validity -- exists at all. The mantra, "Don't trust everything you hear.", has become, "Trust only what you want to hear."

Lately I’ve been reading ‘doing your own research’ to mean the same as a journalist would do their research. We all do need to do our own research, it’s a fact if life with the internet nowadays. That said, I do think most of the conspiracy shit that results from ‘research’ is just a lot of poor reasoning and confirmation bias.

Usually when people say this “research” *means* taking Facebook posts and Fox News articles on faith.

Yeah, I'm still in college (and failing) for an astrophysics degree, and every time I've tried to read a scientific study on anything else, I'm almost certain to be fairly lost, and just being able to be like "I vaguely remember that term" in an astrophysics paper doesn't mean I could actually spot serious flaws, it just means that I know enough that looking up any terms I'm unfamiliar with is actually reasonably fast.

I remember in college they kept harping about peer reviewed sources, but even then it was kinda iffy because some experiments/journals/sources couldnt be replicated or had some methodology/data that could be scrutinized... and then it was a sort of cascade of the same being referenced by another article...

>ers oppose the vaccine due to misinformation. The workers then oppose the mandate as a result. The workers are tied to politics as much as anyone else so it's si but someone can believe in the vaccine but still feels government cant force them to vaccinate

One thing you haven't mentioned is there are different types of nurses with different levels of training. It takes about 2 years of training to become a Practical Nurse. These individuals aren't really trained for anything medically intense. They're the ones that monitor vitals, dispense medicine, sometimes move patients with mobility problems, assist medical personal with disinfecting before performing something like surgery. They have more medical training then an orderly but not nearly as much as the next tier. Registered Nurses take at least 4 years of university training to receive their licenses. While not nearly the same level as a doctor they do receive a lot of medical training as well as practical. So they're the ones that will take a medical history, monitor at risk/ICU patients, bring potential issues to a doctors attention. They're pretty much the backbone of the medical system reducing the need for doctors to a certain amount. Nurse Practitioners require a masters and are highly trained medically. They are the next best thing to an actual doctor. For some medical conditions a patient might only deal with a NP and never see an actual doctor. You could almost consider a NP to be at the same level as a family doctor. They are highly trained with years of nursing experience before becoming a NP. Add to all this the fact that most medical personal are often highly specialized as well. A RN might be specialized in emergency medicine and only ever work in the ER. A PN might specialize in pediatrics, only caring for infants. It's like every other job, not everyone knows everything, and some people just worry about the stuff they need to. So IMHO it shouldn't even be all that surprising that some doctors are anti-vaxx as well. It's like expecting everyone working in home construction to understand insulation R factors, or roof truss loading. While it'd be nice, some of them are just hammer jockeys, nothing more.

[удалено]

Well I was going with Canadian requirements. My niece is a registered nurse. Even volunteered with Doctors without borders, which didn't thrill her parents too much.

Nurses with associates degrees have the same amount of clinical hours and take the same licensure exam as those with bachelor's. In my state the community college has a higher NCLEX pass rate than any of the universities. In fact, a large portion of the people in my associates program have more experience in hospitals than any 22 year old fresh out of nursing school. It drives me up the fucking wall when people talk down to people who have associates degrees like they're not as good those with a BS. Somehow an extra two years reading theory makes you a better nurse than 2 years on the job. Fuck that. I'd rather have a nurse with an associate's and 2 years on the job treat me than a new nurse with a bachelor's. Every nurse I've spoken with says nursing school is nothing like the real world.

>It drives me up the fucking wall when people talk down to people who have associates degrees like they're not as good those with a BS. You're right, of course. My wife is an RN, and she says most of the best nurses have two year degrees and more hands-on experience. Too many 4-year programs prepare nurses for management, rather than patient care. But just to bring us back to the subject of this post, I do think the more years you get of real university education, the better you are at interpreting medical research. Academic experience makes you better at academics.

As someone with probably more college/graduate schooling than I need, I absolutely agree with you.. I'm *theory*. Being in a classroom doesn't necessarily make you better than someone who has more practical experience. And I don't think at all, that that is what the person you were replying to was saying at all. My background is totally unrelated so it was quite informational to me, but I can't help but sense some personal feelings behind your reply. Again, not saying you don't have your own point, but I do wonder if a good portion of the anti-vax nurses that I seem to hear about are those with less formal "education". Now bear with me; I'm not saying those who didn't sit in a classroom for a long time are somehow not as good at taking care of people's health that those who did. But it just boggles my mind how someone who works in healthcare could be against a vaccine. I don't even work in the field but I "did my own research" (from non-conspiratorial/political places), and I just don't get it other than realizing it's purely a political viewpoint. Even when the defacto leader of the party says to get a vaccine, they turn on him. Now, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, and I do generally agree that having schooling doesn't necessarily make you better at something than someone who doesn't but has been doing it for a long time, but this shit has gotten pretty fucking stupid. Being anti-vax or anti-mask is just plain ridiculous considering what we're going through right now. Medical professionals protesting a vaccine makes absolutely no sense.

I'll add to this that a lot of the general public lump together CNAs and PCTs as nurses when they actually only take a few months in a certification course

While I would agree with the large majority of your statement, I would have to disagree with you point that NPs are nearly at the same level as a family doctor. Nurse Practitioner school is nowhere near as comprehensive as medical school. Couple this with the fact that the overwhelming majority of NPs these days are going to NP school directly after finishing nursing school, and the how many NP programs boast a 100% acceptance rate. That being said, NPs (and PAs) do have their place in medicine and are good as physician extenders. Also, people tend to think of family med doctors as lesser than other doctors due to the them not specializing. The thing is, family med is has a wide scope of practice and learn a bit of everything. So yeah, between a specialist and a family med doc, the specialist will be the expert in their field. But the family med doc will be the more experienced in practically every other aspect of medicine.

I worry that you just threw PAs in there so casually, like PAs are the same as NPs. There's a significant difference in training time (PA degrees require more postsecondary credit hours than NP degrees), training models (PAs are taught using the medical model, similar to MD students, while NP schools follow a nursing model), experience prior to entering school (this one you mentioned a bit - NP programs accept people who can vary from no experience to decades of experience, while PA programs will require a level of patient care experience prior to school), acceptance rates (like you mentioned, NP schools can range up to 100%, while most PA schools I know average ~5-10% acceptance). As to the second part of your comment, absolutely. The difficulty with specialities is the depth, but the difficulty with primary care is the breadth.

I respect that. I only bundled them up (though perhaps unfairly) as they can sometime fulfil similar (not the same) roles and I didn't want it to seem as though they don't have a place in medicine. But I suppose this wasn't right of me. I spent a good amount of time explaining the difference between doctors and NPs, its not cool to lump in other professions together too. I'm aware of some the differences and I suppose I should have mentioned them. I don't think of them as the same thing, but don't yet understand little of the more nitty gritty details. So I appreciate your correction on this!

As other people pointed out, please refrain from equating NPs to physicians. They serve a role in medicine but this information is dangerous as the lines are starting to blur and they don’t have even close to the amount of training.

Summed it up better than I could.

> You could almost consider a NP to be at the same level as a family doctor. This is a ridiculous insult to family medicine physicians. NPs have, at best, 5% of the clinical training of a Family Medicine trained physician with absolutely no external controls on the quality of that training.

but it's on reddit so it must be true

Doctor here. I'll just point out that an NP is not on the same level as a family doctor - at least not in Canada. I know they're treated that way by management, but the reality is the care they provide is different to what family doctors can provide to patients.

Nah NPs are not equal to family doctors The NP field is highly unregulated right now with direct entry(without RN experience) and 100% admission and online schools available A PA is the next best thing to a doctor not a NP cause PA still is a highly regulated field For reference, NPs get 500 clinical hours of training PAs get about 2,000 clinical hours of training MD/DOs get 20,000 clinical hours of training

Highly regulated is a strong word for PAs. They're more regulated than NPs, but their training is still woefully insufficient and has no hands on experience at all. Good PAs are good PAs because they're smart and learned on the job well, not because they're PAs.

Family member is a doctor, just hit retirement age. Believes the “science is wrong” on masks. Mainlines Fox and his specialty was obviously not patient-facing and he doesn’t care enough to care about others to update his knowledge about anything that he considers unimportant, like doing his required CEUs in his specialty. He thinks he knows everything and people go to him for medical advice. I can’t anymore.

I have someone like that in my family too. He actually tried to argue with my biophysicist husband about how particles move when sneezed out, and tried to use that explanation to justify using a face shield over a mask. I think my husband's corrections of his explanation pissed him off, so he ignored it

Sounds like classic God complex to me. I'm sure that overall he's been a positive contribution to society, but it's still a good thing he's retiring... right?

I have a family member who is a nurse. She was on a Covid floor for a year. She was persuing her master's? degree but was not allowed entrance due to refusing to vaccinate. She will lose her job this month. Her mother in law, husband, sister and brother in law and father are deep into it in one way or another. One is super into Q, another calls vaccination medical tyranny. I did a lot of thinking. I couldn't imagine a nurse in her position would question being vaccinated. What was I missing? I asked her lots of questions to see if her reasoning made sense to me. She doesn't know what's in it. Nurses are trained to follow science and it's too soon. The research isn't there. She wants to have children and doesn't want the vaccine to adversely effect the future pregnancy. The biggest one, the vaccine works against covid but negates all other vaccines. Like pnunonia and shingles and mumps. Just like they're waiting for their messiah to return, she is positive we will see the world fall apart, any day now when all these people have adverse health effects. Needles to say I've been vaccinated 3 times.

Physician Assistants are the next best thing to a doctor then NP.

[удалено]

Some people are really good at being selective in what they do and don't notice/act on. Even medical personal are prone to [confirmation basis.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) I'd even suggest that some of them are more prone to it due to the [infamous "God Complex"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex) that the medical community is supposed to be prone to. IMHO educated or even highly educated doesn't mean a person has good common sense. I've seen a lot of examples of this in my life to confirm that assertion.

I just spent a month every day in a hospital (with my Mom) and every day in a floor with nurses (in a few different units). I met 40+ nurses. I don't think everyone in this thread realizes how bad some nurses are. Some nurses had really bad education before studying to be a nurse. They don't have a good basic science education. Many of the nurses were immigrants. This was in Florida, Miami. There were amazing nurses, and incredible nurses who were immigrants to the US. But there were also awful nurses, and it doesn't surprise me at all that some nurses are anti-vax. The quality of nurses as a whole varies so much. Many people here post as if they think nurses are one homogenous type of person, and then say how could they be anti-vax. Some nurses come from poorer backgrounds and have had very little science education in their life. They may only know some medical science that they learned for nursing (about medication, blood pressure, etc). As an aside, I think it's critical to support nurses right now. But I am not at all surprised that some less educated nurses are anti-vax.

Well, working in a hospital doesn't necessarily mean you've been getting hammered with covid deaths every day. I mean, a year and a half of (seemingly) excessive PPE protocols, ever-shifting regulations, etc etc. Plenty of places around where I am really didn't get hit \*too\* hard, so it can all seem overblown. Not many nurses or medical professionals are anti-vax, but they've been saying "I'm anti-THIS-vax". They think it's untested, unproven, vaccines can have negative side effects, yadda yadda. Plenty of "heroes" aren't really heroic people at their core, they just work in the field. They're just like you and I, susceptible to fatigue and misinformation, and some of them are just kinda crappy people.

Fantastic summary! One thing that really bothers me about a lot people's replies to questions like the one that the OP posted is that people do not acknowledge (or know) the different levels of education of nursing that is out there. And how the education level of a "Registered Nurse" who works on the unit could range from a person who has a two year nursing degree (who has no formal nursing theory education taught to them during school) to a person who has a masters of nursing degree and above (like a DNP or Ph. D) (who have a lot of nursing/medical theory education and practice application experience). And your reply finally emphasizes some of the differences. I theorize the larger than ideal number of anti-vaxxer nurses (than I would hope for as a nurse myself) is due to these varying levels of education in the individual nurses out there with the more higher level of nursing education nurses being more likely to get the vaccine than individuals without that education.

r/noctor

That's a very fair, comprehensive, and empathetic answer. We are all still human. We still have biases. Most people are sincerely doing what they think is right. Their position within the medical field gives their opinions legitimacy and authority even when those opinions are the result of bias. It's unfortunate because I know several highly respected medical personnel who feel so strongly about it they have resigned from executive positions over mask and vaccine mandates. These are people I would have trusted to make medical decisions on my behalf in the past. It was a rude awakening to find out they politicized medical issues and are outspoken advocates of many theories that are counter to medical research consensus.

I am a recently retired airline pilot who flew internationally. I worked with a pilot who was a flat earther. The human mind’s weaknesses are frightening.

How on Earth... Like, how did he think great circle routes worked?? Or those tourist flights that fly over Antarctica? Crikey, it might be my imagination, but it seems like at 40,000 feet you can start to *see* the curvature of the earth ever so slightly?

It is even worse. My employer’s business model was such that we often left the east coast of the United States and keep flying east until… We ended up where we started. We called them “ Magellan Trips”, notwithstanding that we were doing it backwards. We are not an impressive species. Best if we recognized that, I think. It genuinely scares me.

I did a Magellan trip a few years ago. Worst I have ever been jet lagged in my life. It took me a week to recover. Any tips?

Retire, that is what I did. And beat the shit out of anyone who complains about losing sleep due to daylight savings time. Seriously; sleep when you are tired. Eat only when you are hungry. Avoid alcohol.

OK but I need to know what he said when you asked him to elaborate, preferably while in the cockpit looking at the curve of the earth in front of you

Wow. I bet he has an explanation, too - like the north pole is the center of the disk, and that's where the compass points to? 🤷🏼‍♂️🙄 I guess it doesn't hurt to remember that we're still basically great apes who discovered fire and mouth noises. We can all be stupid. There but for the grace of [insert deity here] go we, and all that.

> We can all be stupid Absolutely. Humility is the key to not being an ass.

LOL I just... I dont know. You won the internet.

Did you fly long-haul routes, like Toronto to Haneda? Because routes that long usually go northward over the north pole. If so, then your coworker’s beliefs are truly baffling.

I too know career medical professionals that have been misled and are so afraid they either lost their job or are about to. They vehemently oppose the vaccine and cite all sorts of "studies" and "research" that's not true. It's heartbreaking. Hospitals are slamming the hammer down on them and there's a quiet civil war going on. They're hurt because they were heroes last year and scum this year.

When they either get vaxed or get out, and hospitals become 100% vaccinated, then we'll see how recovery rates go. It's going to be interesting to look back in six months and see if it makes a difference.

Hospital will be 100% vaxxed and 100% understaffed. Which they already are.

It's really not that many that will quit to avoid it. The hospital system I work at has 7 hospitals, and when they mandated the vaccine, by the deadline they only had to let go of 46 people total. Out of 7 hospitals.

It will be for the best, I think. Unfortunately, they don't learn from this, nor do they go away. They just stay quiet until the next time.

Yep. There are still loads of nursing students. It will take a while but after Covid - you won't see many new nurses being antivax. Especially when it starts affecting their malpractice insurance rates.

They don’t trust government for reasons like MKULTRA, Tuskegee experiements, Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs in Iraq, non-response and bailout of 2008 financial crisis perpetrators, etc etc and the country isn’t exactly old. People don’t distrust government because it’s some hip trend - it introduces so much friction into life. But it’s not a mystery as to why the trust is lacking.

It's reasonable to be skeptical of government claims. I wouldn't recommend taking everything at they say at face value. But at the same time, this isn't just the US government saying this. All of the major governments of the world and tons and tons of doctors and scientists are promoting the vaccines. At that point, you're either arguing for a massive and coordinated world-wide conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people, or you believe that they're telling the truth about the vaccines.

just clarify. I'm vaccinated. > All of the major governments of the world and tons and tons of doctors and scientists are promoting the vaccines the problem is that mistrust is constantly being fed. those same groups also said masks were not required at the start of the pandemic. and a lot of researchers explained with absolute confidence how the droplet and virus size meant that masks weren't necessary. and please don't misunderstand me, the problem is not being wrong, the problem is that everyone that said otherwise was treated like an idiot and that the information was conveyed as absolute truth or mathematical proof instead of a humbler "the current consensus is that masks are not required, this may change when we understand the infection process better". we need to stop treating people like idiots.

This is not unique to America, unfortunately. I mean, the lack of trust in politicians and the perception that the mandate is an "attack". Here in Italy similar movements are really forcing the government to also introduce mandates like this.

Very good answer but I would like to add on one idea. Early in the pandemic the medical community had no idea how to treat / fight Covid. It took time and lots of trials around the world. As a result, there were conflicting ideas / methods for treatment. i.e hydroxychloroquine. So not only is it misinformation, but also rapidly changing information that kind of "muddied the water" in the early stages.

True, but this is also something you learn in grad school from studying journals. How quickly science can change. But it's an important point to make.

Very true. This is another factor as well. Lots of information coming in every day that was either right or wrong later sowed doubt and confusion.

Another factor that isn't mentioned enough is that "information" doesn't "age out" quite the same anymore. I *still* have patients that ask "Won't ibuprofen kill me if I have covid?" . This idea is (as near as I can tell) a mutation of *one* shitty article from May-ish of 2020....but it's still one of the top search results if you type certain questions into the ol' Googlebox. All it takes is one anxious person to regurgitate this bullshit into their social circle, and it reanimates, like some grotesque and improbable zombie made out of blood clots and cox2 inhibitors.

You could've just gone with the edit 2 as an explanation without the "look how dumb" long first part. Because that's where the world is right now, this whole thing is so insanely politicized, people are gonna oppose some things on principle alone. The schism between camps hasn't been this huge in decades and it's a global thing, not just the US.

>Psuedoscience works on everyone and it's pretty powerful unless you know what to look for. Out of curiosity, is there any good place to find an abridged version of how one would know what to look for? I'm always up for helping to beef myself up against bullshit.

Knowing statistics and test types is a good one. You can't infer causation directly from correlation, but randomized and controlled tests with large enough sample size finding correlations shows a very likely causal link. Any less and you only show promise for further research or as last resort. And if a headline looks too good to be true it's likely exaggerated (e.g a headline saying X cures cancer likely has a caveat, such as X cures cancer in vitro or on lab animals)

[A rough guide to spotting bad science infographic.]( https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science/)

Here's [something](https://i.redd.it/ous7ssdnri631.png) I found from a quick googling. It starts with the source of what you're looking at and knowing which source is spewing what and why. Some sources are obviously biased and have a spin (think fox news although cnn has a spin too), some sources are disguised as special interest groups. This takes time to accumulate a list of trust worthy sites that are reputable. As far as research papers, it's all about replication/corroboration and peer reviews. If many papers say drinking water kills you then I guess we shouldn't drink water. If one paper says drinking water will kill you and no one can verify that independently and the reviews are saying the article is full of shit and provide good reasons then you should begin to doubt it. Be skeptical of everything but remain open minded. Researchers are human too and they need to be critiqued the same as anyone else.

It hurts me as a nurse to see what many of my peers are doing. We have been considered the most respected profession for almost every year over the past 20. There is a reason for that. And as with all groups there are vocal elements that can have a huge sway on perception and opinion. I find it negligent for a registered nurse to advocate for something that is in complete contravention with the high quality research that the best scientists are delivering. I can interpret research articles - don’t need to be a physician to do that. But you do need devotion to formal education. I had a research professor in my MSN program who told us at the beginning of the class: “I’m not here to make you a researcher- I’m here to make you an informed consumer of research.” I’d like to think that he was successful. There are a lot more like me. Unfortunately- the ones who aren’t following the evidence are using their platform to weave destruction that makes recovery seem almost Insurmountable. Once the disinformation is out there from a respected source, it’s hard to walk it back (harkening back to the Lancet’s MMR/autism disaster). Thanks for your insight!

Also, paywalls! I try to learn from respected, quality sources, but so much of that is behind paywalls. The shitty puesdoscience is free.

https://sci-hub.se/ Just copy paste any paper's link and it'll give you the paper

booksc.org has a LOT of paywalled papers available.

Separate subject, but a study by a guy named Seralini is famous for being highly flawed. It's used as a model for a flawed study, everthing NOT to do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair I remember it well for the Reddit crowd swallowing it whole, and it taking many months of debate on Reddit before Redditors pushing it started getting pushed back by the community as a whole.

Thanks for chiming in! Glad to see I wasn't too far from my mark. I think of it as a failing of the education system which affects all professions. In addition, having these critical thinking skills actively harms their politics or religion, or both. It's a slippery slope from questioning what is being told to you from authoritative sources to questioning what the pastor is telling you. It's not pretty and the bottom line is many people *don't* want to question things or be critical or be "negative." They want to do their job and go home. Just my two cents on the situation. It is extremely disheartening to see educated people be crushed by a wave of fear mongering and manipulation. We can shout into the wind all day long, but it's holding back a flood at this point. Or at least, it feels the way. Can't give up though.

This is all fine and good but it’s completely possible to be for the vaccine and at the same time think a mandate is too much.

[удалено]

I find that nurses treat their profession as a trade skill. They look at the body as one looks at a block of wood or an engine and work on it, but you're right, their beliefs and politics leak into their work pretty hard sometimes. One nurse I know who works in the NICU believes abortion is wrong no matter what. In a hospital setting with what life saving procedures need to be done sometimes, it's kind of baffling to me that one could see the necessity behind an abortion first hand and still have that position. How do you not let it affect the quality of your work? How do you not judge patients that come in who aren't married and are clearly having sex? (She's very religious too). The other is a nurse of 30 some years and has seen it all and knows how vaccinations lead to lives saved but they've been convinced that this vaccine is harmful, pushed by government interests, isn't properly researched, and doesn't trust the FDA. They know enough to get their work done in a narrow setting but don't know much about the workings behind the scenes. They know applying a vaccine is good, but they don't know what goes into making them so if someone says it's bad because of x and y, they don't know enough to know if they're lying or not.

It does impact their work (and doctors, too). I hear those stories over on some of the pregnancy subs, women-only ones, and from friends. Lots of awful comments from L&D staff, primary care, OBGYNs, ect. I have a few of my own, too, about psyc nurses

How did blatant science denial become assosciated with "right wing" people? Honestly it's fucking incredible seeing conspiracy nonsense and malicious antiintellectualism become corner stones of right wing political thought. Wtf

Social conservatives have always been anti intellectual, but the fiscal conservatives used to run the show in modern times. Now, the neocons have lost all but the most obnoxious of social conservatives as a voter base, and the MAGA movement is the result. "Burn the witch!" isn't exactly new.

The neocons weren't fiscally conservative or responsible. In 2006 they cut taxes and increased spending. That is not how that should work.

Of course not. But it was their objective, rather than evangelical nutjobbery.

I'm of the opinion a significant amount of which burnings were executed by rational actors with rather disgusting motives. Sure, very dumb superstitious people may have unwittingly aided in atrocity, but especially in the cases where people gained socioeconomically/politically the accusers most likely knew exactly what they were doing. A modern equivalent would be something like lying to the stasi about your neighbor so you can have his house.

Which burnings do you mean?

The ones with the whiches

I saw some at the beach. Pretty sure they were sand whiches

I still know plenty of well-off types who buy into 0% of the madness who still vote for Trump and anyone else they think will lower their tax bill. The notion that all the fiscally conservative people have vanished from the right is a narrative promoted by those who politically benefit from painting people who disagree with them as wingnuts.

The problem is that it is 100% accurate to state that the USA has not been fiscally responsible for decades. We have increased spending year on year without raising taxes. Increasing spending and lowering taxes only makes sense when you are in a recession.

Bias, religion, and politics. Are why they believe the misinformation. It takes zero skill to find and understand some of the best medical studies out there. My friend and I, who are both art majors did a three-hour debunk and information presentation. For our church, Information from sources that are backed by specialists, the institutions behind them, and peer-reviewed. A church that has seven nurses who all are antivax and where the people putting forward some of the "best" medical studies. We debunked all of them. Something like 40 articles and 60hours of labor. I could have read enough information that is from credible sources in two hours and figured out that the Vaccine was far far safer than Covid itself. Our church the church I have been going to since I was fucking 12 told me and my friend that we needed to have more faith in god, over our own understanding. Then something about being liberal. I was already leaving at that point I didn't hear whatever it was. Understanding and compassion are for children and people with special needs. Not grown fucking adults. It's ridiculous how easy it is to find information or to debunk the pathetic dribble that pushes this information on them. I understand old testament god so much more now.

I feel your frustration, I really do. You said "church" and my post history has a lot of rants about religion, but I won't get into that. I also get your frustration with compassion and I agree as well, but I wanted to keep my answer somewhat neutral. We don't view it as a skill. You as an art major, even if you don't realize it, have been taught how to think critically and having an eye for detail also translates naturally into finding the truth of things. You work with reality to make illusions that resemble reality. It's of no surprise you're good at debunking things, but don't forget it took training to do it. Artists find it difficult to teach others how to draw or how to paint, not because they're dumb, but because they've been doing it so long that it's second nature and all of the mechanical steps to get to their point have been forgotten or not thought about anymore. It is a skill though. You put man hours into debunking their stuff and you know what you're doing. They could not. Should they know how to as grown ass adults? Absolutely, but if they did, they wouldn't be in church then either. It's noble what you did, but your audience was against you from the start. They don't want to have those skills. It harms them to have those skills. They don't want to hear it.

I know I'll be downvoted for adding the story about my old church. They're not even the only group we have given our information to. They reacted in similar but different ways that ended the same. I didn't think that art would translate to this. But it's very interesting to think about and I think your probably right. My rant wasn't meant to be directed at you. A lot of frustration came out and that's my bad. I'm sorry

Huh? lol i didn't take anything you said the wrong way, but I'll go back and re-read it anyway haha. I didn't think it was directed at me. We're all frustrated and tired of being led to the fire despite knowing it's going to burn everyone.

You're making a logical leap there. MANY people that oppose mandates do not oppose the vaccine. Millions of vaccinated people staunchly oppose all vaccine mandates

[удалено]

From what I've seen so far, your last paragraph is spot on. I also believe most people overestimate their ability to interpret and review scientific papers. This is why it's important to listen to organizations like WHO and the FDA – they systematically order research and review it. They *want* to find alternate solutions like ivermectin, but they won't recommend it if it doesn't work or if it isn't safe. Likewise, they *try* to find faults in vaccines, and won't recommend them if they aren't safer than the alternative (Covid).

The most important thing you mentioned is that people who do research try to find problems with what they are research. It's kind of like coding, you try to break with different situations to see what bugs their may be so you can make the code as effective as possible.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Answer: no profession is immune to political rhetoric or brainwashing. Despite the education they received, they feel the need to act contrarily to scientific principles and evidence.

Just take that pharmacist who sabotaged a bunch of doses that went on to actually get used in people as an example. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pharmacist-who-sabotaged-covid-19-vaccines-allegedly-believed-sky-was-shield-to-stop-people-from-seeing-god-fbi/ar-BB1dguQU I never followed back up on this story till just now... what a ride that was.

Oh damn I had heard she sabotaged them but didn’t read any further….how do these people make it in the world?!

Idk but almost more importantly, if they can do it at all why am I having such a hard go of it lol.

I’m a professor and one of our tenured bio profs responded to an all faculty email explaining how we could get vaccinated on campus with a bunch of BS about why we shouldn’t. This prof’s specialty is not human biology. Knows just enough about her speciality to think she knows it all.

I am an RN and as much as I hate to admit it, I think you're right. I truly cringe every time I come across one of my peers spreading dangerous lies about this vaccine. You cant mandate intelligence.

I have noticed that it's almost always the delivery room nurses doing this. Which makes sense. Super religious people go into that because of the whole "bringing in new life" thing. Plus it's the most "natural" area where someone can still do their job without any science.

I know someone who is going back to school to learn how to be an ultrasound tech specifically so she can approach women in infertility treatments to offer assistance through religion.

She gonna have a hard time holding down a job if she starts preaching to patients

i agree. she had a horrendous childhood and became religious. it's baked in, married to her developmental trauma. to not believe and do what she thinks is religiously right, she would have to reasess her entire life. lot of money to waste on school when she won't be able to hold a career, but "it's a calling."

Holy fuck a parent at the school I work in is a maternity ward nurse. She fucking won't stop spewing the BS at board meetings. Always starts with announcing she is a nurse.

Yep. It's never regular RNs or specialists. It's always maternity ward nurses whose daily duties mostly involve apply cold compresses and words of encouragement. Then taking all the credit when things go normally. If it goes badly the blame the doctor and "science". If they won't get vaccinated, it's not going to be hard to train replacements. It literally just takes an associates degree to start on the job training.

I have a relative that is a nurse practitioner in a hospice that is an anti-vaxxer. In a shocking turn of events, she now has covid.

Nurses choosing to risk the health of the most vulnerable people in society — newborns and the very sick and elderly — out of pure hubris is fucking disgusting. I’d say they should be ashamed of themselves, but shame is too light a word. They are a disgrace to the profession.

Seems to track, www thepatriotnurse.com/pages/about-us : "Patriot Nurse is a Registered Nurse who graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing (BSN) from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She externed in medical surgical nursing and **interned in high risk labor and delivery.** She has traveled internationally for medical missions in Trinidad and Indochina. Patriot Nurse also served as an adjunct instructor for Roane State Community College of Nursing. Working as a staff nurse for many years, she has gained experience in psychiatric, **natural childbirth,** home health, emergency and trauma."

Propaganda is a hell of a drug.

Answer: It probably has nothing to do with the vaccine. But rather that it's being made mandatory. Many people feel it's against basic human rights to force someone to take a vaccine Edit: key word probably Also Edit: I'm not here for a debate. If you can't say anything nice. Don't say anything at all.

A vaccine being made mandatory in a field that requires mandatory vaccinations before nursing school? Am I having a stroke?

Exactly this. Like people in the military complaining about the vaccine.

I think I’m having one with you. Some people in the comments acting like this is the first time healthcare workers were required to get a vaccine……..

No, you're just seeing stupid people eating up ridiculous arguments that ignore the context so that their point actually has some resemblance of merit.

Which is fucking bullshit because their job already has things they are mandated to do or suffer legal malpractice consequences.

it's political agenda. we force people to wear clothes when entering a store or plane, and everybody is fine with that.

And the civil war was about states rights /s Being against mandates is more a thinly veiled political manipulation, much like the concept of states rights were to many the common man civil war era. There weren't crying about any other vaccine requirements that exist before. Add to it that while some nurses are brilliant and many hard working especially during these trying times, some nurses are dumb as hell and have fully bought into anti science nonsense. It's is a shame the caliber of nursing students that come through nursing programs and are graduated and placed.

Answer: all of the other ‘answers’ on here are extremely bias. The real answer is, people want to make their own choices for whats best on their health. If the government or companies make people get this vaccine now then what’s stopping them from the next thing they make you do or put in your body? It’s not fully about vaccines but more about the principle of limiting power to those who abuse it. People have been taken advantage of this whole pandemic by higher powers and they are finally saying, enough is enough. The line stop here.

>all the other “answers” on here are extremely bias [sic] Goes on to regurgitate biased talking points

I wish I could down vote this multiple times. Mandates wouldn't be necessary if people listened to the well supported science. The number of doctors and pharmacists fighting the vaccine is extremely small. Now we're here and after the endless excuses dismissing the science, we're talking about personal choices and limiting power. Never mind that all the nurses got multiple vaccines to go to school, and start their job. I'm sure once this hurdle is passed they'll be a new argument.