Isn't the vaccination rate of healthcare worker only about 60%? If the reasons are strictly misinformation, then it seems you have an almost 40% chance of getting an incompetent healthcare professional. In my mind, that suggests there are rational and reasonable reasons, since I find that more likely than 40% being blatantly incompetent.

Most groups of people are susceptible to misinformation. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's a bias among nurses, who know enough to be in the medical field, but use that confidence to overestimate their ability to make medical decisions like getting the Covid vaccine.

96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine. Top medical researchers in the immunology recommend the vaccine. etc. etc. These people are less (but not completely) susceptible to misinformation because they are truly able to interpret research and findings.

We should be following doctors and immunology medical researchers. Not nurses.

(This isn't meant to be an inherent slight on nurses, by the way. I think it's just human nature.)

We also have to account for demographics and understand the risk/benefit analysis. That 96% number is from a WebMD survey of about 300 physicians. The ages are mostly over 50 with only 7% being under 35. So they are in the somewhat higher risk groups. They also work a job that runs a high risk of exposure. This means they might see their risk of infection and serious illness being high enough to justify it without feeling it is necessary to recommend it to everyone. For example, we don't all receive rabies vaccines yet many animal handlers do.

Another important thing to note is that there could be bias in that group. If you dedicate your life to medicine, you may be more likely to trust medicine without questioning it. Unless you've had an experience that was negative. Many physicians that have had negative personal experiences abide by the idea that new means unproven (which matches the reason that most unvaccinated doctors gave in the survey and the CDC lists - that the longterm risks are unknown).

Lastly, most doctors are to mechanics as medical researchers are engineers. Most doctors aren't looking up studies on PubMed or doing research. They mostly rely on what they've been taught in school and in continuing education. For the most part they are following established protocols. Hell, even the experts admit that there is a lot they don't know about the immune system. Take for example that researchers are seeing protection from the vaccine before antibodies are produced - which was unexpected.

So while most groups are susceptible to misinformation, that doesn't invalidate the position that one may avoid the vaccine due to the unkmown longterm affects. It's really a question of risk/benefit analysis in a sea of incomplete information.

I can't find exact distributions, but the average ago for nurses and the average age for doctors are the same. Around 51 years old. Seems like poor argument to use.

At the end of the day, doctors and medical researchers are producing the highest quality opinions on the subject. If you're not following their lead, then you are very likely in the wrong.

Are they sometimes wrong? Absolutely. But the key point: to think that you are more likely to be correct is absurd.

96% of practicing physicians are fully vaccinated [1]. That number goes way down as you look at nursing home aids, nurses, and home aids. If the argument is that healthcare workers not taking it makes it rational and reasonable, you need to contend with the fact that the more educated you are in medicine, the less hesitant you are.

It seems more likely that nurses and aids can't interprete dense medicalese or understand mRNA any better than the average person and are no less susceptible to misinformation than the average person. That doesn't make them incompetent at their jobs, which aren't about creating complex treatment plans using the latest and greatest medical research, but finding veins, delivering meds, scrubbing sores, changing bed pans etc.

[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-3150

It could be that they are in higher risk demographics too. Only 7% were under 35, with the majority of the 300 or so being over 50. That greatly changes the risk/benefit equation. Although I think your generalization is probably accurate to some degree.

Can you explain why a "talking point" immediately invalidates something?

>A talking point, often used in the plural, is a pre-established message or formula used in the field of political communication, sales and commercial or advertising communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_point

Let me ask you this: is "Everyone (who can) should take the vaccine" a message that medical organizations are communicating with minimal variance?

If "talking point" is getting us tripped up here, maybe "convenient excuse spread mostly to help the vaccine hesitant continue to not get the vaccine" would be a better phrase.

I'm not an English major here. Just trying to get my point across.