Should NHS Staff in the UK Face Mandatory Vaccination?

[Alex_Krycek]

NHS staff, officials, and government ministers are currently debating the logic and efficacy of a proposed vaccine mandate for NHS staff.  Up to 80,000 NHS staff have said they will not comply with the mandatory vaccination policy for Covid -19.  Their main reason for rejecting the mandate seems to be a lack of long term safety data (as opposed to other vaccines, such as for Hep B, which has 30+ years of safety data) and also natural immunity being built up by repeated exposure to the virus.

The most serious consequence of implementing the policy would be the loss of so many critical care staff when the NHS is already under strain.  Even those who support the mandate think it would now be a Pyrrhic Victory, due to the loss of staff and also the recent removal of restrictions for the general public, which they argue would make the NHS mandate practically irrelevant.

A summary of the points and counterpoints in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/23/mandatory-covid-jabs-policy-divides-nhs-leaders-in-england-as-deadline-nears?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

This was a also a good debate about the topic on Good Morning Britain:

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

Yes

Unvaccinated healthcare professionals should be nowhere near unhealthy patients seeking care. 

[zapatos]

I agree they should face mandatory vaccination. My wife worked at a Children's Hospital and was always required to have flu and Tdap vaccinations. They were also tested annually for TB. I'm sure that hospital now requires COVID vaccines.

When your customers are some of the most vulnerable in the population to health issues, it only makes sense to ensure your staff takes all reasonable precautions against making things worse.

[CharonY]

The long-term safety data is a bit of a red herring- what one should look for is the rate of adverse effects relative to doses administered. Collecting less data over a longer period does not tell us more.

[StringJunky]

The ethical argument demands frontline healthworkers be appropriately vaccinated for their work, otherwise they are knowingly putting their charges at risk. It's the antithesis of good medical practice.

Edited January 24, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm sure that hospital now requires COVID vaccines.

Not in Iowa where they’re also trying to make mask requirements in schools illegal.

In a blatantly hackish political move and power grab, our governor just recently signed a law expanding religious exemptions to vaccines such that they basically include anyone who wants to say “this is against my religion” even if the claimant can’t or won’t share where or how their religion is against it, and even if they don’t practice religion in any traditional sense.

This has forced our states largest hospitals to backtrack on their previously set vaccine requirements for staff. 

It’s expected that this law will be challenged in court on the grounds that “love thy neighbor” includes not killing them with covid while fixing them an aspirin or checking their blood pressure.

https://www.weareiowa.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/unitypoint-mercyone-des-moines-hospitals-vaccine-mandate-governor-kim-reynolds-law-unemployment-benefits/524-eb0a5b5a-eaaa-4699-9bb9-6e388be9cac9

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The ethical argument demands frontline healthworkers be appropriately vaccinated for their work otherwise they are knowingly putting their charges at risk. It's the antithesis of good medical practice.

First do no harm. Their oath is Hippocratic, but their adherence to it hypocritical. 

[Arete]

My lab routinely works on wastewater, clinical enteric and mucosal samples.  If someone isn't willing to get COVID, influenza, hepatitis vaccinations and wear appropriate PPE, they need to look for a different line of work. I'm not accepting liability for someone being a moron, nor am I trusting the work of a microbiologist who doesn't understand how vaccines work. If you are immunocompromised to the point where getting a vaccine is an unacceptable risk to your health, a BSL2+ is not a place you should be. I imagine if I was in charge of a clinic, I'd feel pretty much the same.  

Edited January 24, 2022 by Arete

[CharonY]

Just now, Arete said:

My lab routinely works on wastewater, clinical enteric and mucosal samples.  If someone isn't willing to get COVID, influenza, hepatitis vaccinations and wear appropriate PPE, they need to look for a different line of work. I'm not accepting liability for someone being a moron, nor am I trusting the work of a microbiologist who doesn't understand how vaccines work. I imagine if I was in charge of a clinic, I'd feel pretty much the same.  

More so, I would say. I mean, at least in my lab the students generally do not have  routine contact with vulnerable individuals. The fact that this does not seem to be universally the case just because of liability reasons is actually quite surprising.

But then it might be potentially difficult for affected patients to prove that they got infected by health care personnel and not e.g. by other patients.

[Alex_Krycek]

The issue at hand is not whether the ideal goal is that every worker should be vaccinated, but whether such a mandate can be justifiably imposed (considering the subsequent loss of 80,000 NHS staff).  Even those who support vaccine mandates in the NHS now seem to feel it would be too great a burden to the system.

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The issue at hand is not whether the ideal goal is that every worker should be vaccinated, but whether such a mandate can be justifiably imposed (considering the subsequent loss of 80,000 NHS staff).  Even those who support vaccine mandates in the NHS now seem to feel it would be too great a burden to the system.

Don't keep us in suspense. Where do you fall on this issue?

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The issue at hand is not whether the ideal goal is that every worker should be vaccinated, but whether such a mandate can be justifiably imposed (considering the subsequent loss of 80,000 NHS staff).  Even those who support vaccine mandates in the NHS now seem to feel it would be too great a burden to the system.

It has been  mandated in NSW with a small number of resignations.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/09/less-than-01-of-nsw-health-staff-have-quit-due-to-covid-vaccination-mandates

Fewer than than 0.1% of NSW health staff have quit due to Covid vaccination mandates

Fewer than 0.1% of New South Wales health staff have resigned as a result of Covid-19 vaccination mandates, contradicting claims that opposition to the jab would lead to staff shortages.

On Friday, the NSW health department confirmed that as of the beginning of October, only 136 staff members employed across the state had resigned “due to their position on Covid-19 vaccination”.

“While this is disappointing, it is important to note that this represents just 0.1% of the public health system workforce of more than 140,000 people,” a spokeswoman for the department said.

The figure stands in stark contrast to the narrative pushed by anti-vaccination groups, which in recent weeks have stepped up campaigns aiming to encourage protests aimed at opposition to mandatory jabs.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Edited January 24, 2022 by beecee

[CharonY]

It is funny that in Canada the nurse and medical association were protesting, too. For not making vaccines mandatory in Ontario and Quebec. Some hospitals and care home require them nonetheless.

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is funny that in Canada the nurse and medical association were protesting, too. For not making vaccines mandatory in Ontario and Quebec. Some hospitals and care home require them nonetheless.

Mandatory also for nursing and aged care too obviously in Australia.

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The issue at hand is not whether the ideal goal is that every worker should be vaccinated, but whether such a mandate can be justifiably imposed (considering the subsequent loss of 80,000 NHS staff).  Even those who support vaccine mandates in the NHS now seem to feel it would be too great a burden to the system.

Glad you reminded members of the actual question in the OP.

However it is a flawed question since you implied that it is mandated everywhere in the UK.

This is just not true.

 

Over the weekend, the BBC published a report suggesting the Welsh NHS is preparing to recruit many or all of the personel displaced by the English mandate.

 

As to my answer to the question,

Surgeons are required to be free of hepatitis (I understand throught the UK).

Vaccination is not enough since it is known not to produce antibodies for some people.

Is the mandate any different ?

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The issue at hand is not whether the ideal goal is that every worker should be vaccinated, but whether such a mandate can be justifiably imposed

Of course it can. Full stop.

There is both an extremely well established and accepted precedent here AND in parallel an agreement from every single employee themselves in their employment contract that they WILL follow all regulations and guidelines around vaccination as a condition of their employment.

So, just think this through for more than 2.61 seconds and you'll see what I mean...

Healthcare worker applies for a job. Hospital system agrees they're qualified and hands them a contract that says, "Sure! We'll hire you, under the following conditions to which you must agree before starting in this role."

The contract then explicitly spells out those conditions like "you will be vaccinated against X,Y,Z and others we deem necessary in the future for the protection of our patients and staff, and you agree to show up on time and not steal personal items from patients and not engage in felatio with coworkers in the supply closet, etc."

The contract then asks, "Do you agree to these TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT?" and the healthcare worker then either says No and goes to find another job elsewhere OR they confirm both A) their understanding of employment conditions, and B) their acceptance of them and then finally C) they follow-up by signing their name to complete the transaction around this entirely valid, justifiable, and LEGAL contractual agreement.

THEN... on top of that and in terms of precedent... there is a LONG list of multiple vaccines that are ALREADY required of healthcare workers including things such as Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, Polio, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Typhoid, plus an annual Influenza shot in most cases. 

So, the real question here for you is: By what backwards chain of logic and blinkered blinded ideology have you arrived upon the conclusion that a Covid-19 vaccine is or should be ANY different and suddenly considered "unjustified" or "too burdensome?"

Edited January 24, 2022 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course it can. Full stop.

There is both an extremely well established and accepted precedent here AND in parallel an agreement from every single employee themselves in their employment contract that they WILL follow all regulations and guidelines around vaccination as a condition of their employment.

So, just think this through for more than 2 seconds and you'll see what I mean...

Healthcare worker applies for a job. Hospital system agrees they're qualified and hands them a contract that says, "Sure! We'll hire you, under the following conditions to which you must agree before starting in this role."

The contract then explicitly spells out those conditions like "you will be vaccinated against X,Y,Z and others we deem necessary for the protection of our patients and staff, and you agree to show up on time and not steal personal items from patients, etc."

The contract then asks, "Do you agree to these TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT?" and the healthcare worker then either says No and goes to find another job elsewhere OR they confirm both A) their understanding of employment conditions, and B) their acceptance of them and follow-up by signing their name to complete this entirely valid, justifiable, and LEGAL agreement.

THEN... on top of that and in terms of precedent... there is a LONG list of multiple vaccines that are ALREADY required of healthcare workers including things such as Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, Polio, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Typhoid, plus an annual Influenza shot in most cases. 

So, the real question here for you is: By what backwards chain of logic and blinkered blinded ideology have you arrived upon the conclusion that a Covid-19 vaccine is or should be ANY different and suddenly considered "unjustified" or "too burdensome?"

You projected the phrase "kindergarten level of analysis" at me in the other thread.  Right back at you with that post.  

The picture perfect scenario you just painted doesn't allow for unknown variables such as new diseases with new vaccines, vaccines that don't have a sufficient track record of safety in the eyes of some (in the case of the NHS it seems to be around 80,0000 workers who are willing to walk off the job because they feel it's so unsafe).  Not so easy to dismiss healthcare workers as Q-Anon cranks.  

Perhaps it is Astra Zeneca's unpredictable and potentially fatal thrombotic events that concern these workers.  Perhaps it is the risk of an increased chance of myocarditis.  Whatever the reason, being told to "shut up and take it" won't work, since they will just quit, leaving the NHS more severely short staffed than ever.   

Nor will contractual agreement solve the issue, since the vaccines you referenced have all been proven safe after decades of use, unlike the novel mRna vaccines.  Unless a clause is written that said employee will consent to any vaccine for any future disease for the entirety of their employment and must remain in their position and not resign if they are unhappy about it.  But if such contracts are ever produced by employers and upheld by the courts, we're no longer living in a free country.   

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Not so easy to dismiss healthcare workers as Q-Anon cranks.

Of course it is. They're a fairly standard cross-section of the population just like the rest of us. 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Nor will contractual agreement solve the issue, since the vaccines you referenced have all been proven safe after decades of use

Do you forget how the flu vaccine changes every. single. year... and is new EACH time it's administered?

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

But if such contracts are ever produced by employers and upheld by the courts, we're no longer living in a free country.   

It's been happening for decades, mate. Have you been living under a rock or something? 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

vaccines that don't have a sufficient track record of safety in the eyes of some (in the case of the NHS it seems to be around 80,0000 workers who are willing to walk off the job because they feel it's so unsafe).

500 MILLION doses have been administered. Tens of THOUSANDS of participants across MULTIPLE clinical trials show it to be safe AND effective. The LARGEST effect has been an allergic response in 0.2% (that's two-tenths of one percent) of participants and some soreness at the injection site for a day or two. Other effects considered serious were things like blot clots that it turns out were happening at the same scale as one would expect from general population even absent a vaccination event. 

But this has ALL been explained to you REPEATEDLY in threads here already and you just won't let the evidence change you're mind. You're too emotionally committed to your preconceived conclusions... or perhaps you don't grasp the concepts of scope and scale, or maybe need to refresh yourself on basic statistics?

In another study, 20 MILLION people got the vaccine, and 25 (not million, not thousand, not hundred... just 25) had a bloodclot, and there's no evidence that the vaccine was even the cause... correlation is not causation. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by iNow

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course it is. They're a fairly standard cross-section of the population just like the rest of us. 

Do you forget how the flu vaccine changes every. single. year... and is new EACH time it's administered?

It's been happening for decades, mate. Have you been living under a rock or something? 

500 MILLION doses have been administered. Tens of THOUSANDS of participants across MULTIPLE clinical trials show it to be safe AND effective. The LARGEST effect has been an allergic response in 0.2% (that's two-tenths of one percent) of participants and some soreness at the injection site for a day or two. Other effects considered serious were things like blot clots that it turns out were happening at the same scale as one would expect from general population even absent a vaccination event. 

But this has ALL been explained to you REPEATEDLY in threads here already and you just won't let the evidence change you're mind. You're too emotionally committed to your preconceived conclusions... or perhaps you don't grasp the concepts of scope and scale, or maybe need to refresh yourself on basic statistics?

In another study, 20 MILLION people got the vaccine, and 25 (not million, not thousand, not hundred... just 25) had a bloodclot, and there's no evidence that the vaccine was even the cause... correlation is not causation. 

I would imagine the others are refreshed/renewed regularly  to target new mutations as well as they arise. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The picture perfect scenario you just painted doesn't allow for unknown variables such as new diseases with new vaccines, vaccines that don't have a sufficient track record of safety in the eyes of some (in the case of the NHS it seems to be around 80,0000 workers who are willing to walk off the job because they feel it's so unsafe)

You've cited that number a couple of times now, but does it have any real meaning? There have been a number of cases where the number of people who allegedly threatened to walk off the job if forced to get vaccinated, and yet when it came time to do so, the number who actually did was far smaller. It's a mostly empty threat.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1041500566/vaccine-mandate-quit-research

[TheVat]

11 hours ago, zapatos said:

Don't keep us in suspense. Where do you fall on this issue?

😁

It helps to follow up on the actual numbers of healthcare workers who make good on their promise to walk off their jobs.  In the US, most of them seem to realize they need a paycheck, so the actual numbers land around 0.5-2% of those who promised they'd quit.  So the spectre of huge labor shortages has so far been a chimera.  And arguing from that is pretty unpersuasive.  

Ha!  Looks like Swan and I parallel posted.

Edited January 24, 2022 by TheVat

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course it is. They're a fairly standard cross-section of the population just like the rest of us. 

We also see a gradient in hesitancy among health care workers, with MDs having the lowest and paramedics or related staff having the highest. 

If anything, hesitancy among healthcare workers shows that informed decisions alone are unlikely to allow us to get universal vaccination levels. Therefore it actually is argument for mandatory rather than voluntary measures. 

The failure is on the "inform" side, as certain folks will continuously deny information presented to them. 

Edit: Swansont and TheVat  made important points and I would like to add that similar patterns have emerged from other countries with federal and/or local vaccine mandates. 

Moreover, historically there are always folks resisting mandates, regardless of the level of actual safety data available (again, red herring, it is more related to confirmation bias). But over time the mandate helps to normalize vaccination schedules and compliance almost always increased over time. 

That being said, public trust is at an all-time low (thanks internet! https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health/dozen-misguided-influencers-spread-most-anti-vaccination-content-social-media), so the effect might be more muted this time around.

 

 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

😁

It helps to follow up on the actual numbers of healthcare workers who make good on their promise to walk off their jobs.  In the US, most of them seem to realize they need a paycheck, so the actual numbers land around 0.5-2% of those who promised they'd quit.  So the spectre of huge labor shortages has so far been a chimera.  And arguing from that is pretty unpersuasive.  

Ha!  Looks like Swan and I parallel posted.

And the next step is to compare that to the normal turnover rate. Vaccinations may just be an excuse, or the last item, for some people who were prone to leaving anyway.

[TheVat]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

And the next step is to compare that to the normal turnover rate. Vaccinations may just be an excuse, or the last item, for some people who were prone to leaving anyway.

Yep, the workers in healthcare who are vaccine deniers would seem to be already out of step with their workplace ethos and its priorities for patients.  

[Arete]

40 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Yep, the workers in healthcare who are vaccine deniers would seem to be already out of step with their workplace ethos and its priorities for patients.  

Healthcare worker =/= clinician. Hospitals employ people in custodial, dining, maintenance, shipping and receiving, grounds keeping, payroll, mailrooms, etc. A CharonY points out, vaccine compliance in actual physicians is significantly higher than the general population. 

So as per the OP - 80,000 represents 6% of the 1.4 million NHS workforce, of which a smaller proportion would actually be medical staff, of which an even smaller proportion would actually have expertise in infectious disease. So the "LoOk aT AlL ThE eXpeRtS WhO wOn'T TaKe ThE ExPeRiMeNtAl VaCcINe!??!" is disingenuous and requires considerable torturing of the data, reminiscent of the "LoOk aT AlL ThE eXpeRtS WhO DoNt BeLieVE ThE EvOluTiOn LiE!!?!" intellectual fallacy. 

[CharonY]

Or to put it differently, folks who understand the risk/benefits of vaccines better are less likely not to get vaccinated.