Should NHS Staff in the UK Face Mandatory Vaccination?

[Alex_Krycek]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

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

Easy for you, perhaps, since dismissing others with contrary views is your MO.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

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

Flu vaccines are not novel MRNA vaccines.  So, invalid point.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

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

Incorrect.  Not in the context I described.  

10 hours ago, iNow said:

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. 

Well, first of all, AZ has been linked to blood clots in the past, so your argument that there is no evidence for that is categorically false and uninformed.  I think the issue many have with AZ and the MRNA in general is the lack of a long term track record of safety.  I think informed care workers are assessing the risk of dying from Covid, versus potentially being adversely affected by the vaccine, and concluding that their risk of being adversely affected by Covid is lower.

The opportunity to improve AZ has also been missed, with downstream consequences.  When perfectly healthy men and women drop dead of a blood clot after taking AZ, and the public health messaging is effectively "Don't worry, that only happens randomly to a few people.  Those people are essentially collateral damage in the context of the wider campaign against Covid; they're mere statistics.  Further, we're not going to work to address these safety concerns or improve the vaccine because the number of people affected is too small to really matter."

To many people this deeply irresponsible messaging in the face of such fatal consequences is cause for deferring the vaccine.  

Edited January 25, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

Like I said: 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

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

 

15 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Easy for you, perhaps, since dismissing others with contrary views is your MO.

I’m fine with contrary views. I’m not, however, fine with willful ignorance and ideologically informed selfishness in the face of global pandemics. 

[Alex_Krycek]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Like I said: 

You haven't explained anything conclusively.

[iNow]

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Easy for you, perhaps, since dismissing others with contrary views is your MO.

Flu vaccines are not novel MRNA vaccines.  So, invalid point.

Incorrect.  Not in the context I described.  

Well, first of all, AZ has been linked to blood clots in the past, so your argument that there is no evidence for that is categorically false and uninformed.  I think the issue many have with AZ and the MRNA in general is the lack of a long term track record of safety.  I think informed care workers are assessing the risk of dying from Covid, versus potentially being adversely affected by the vaccine, and concluding that their risk of being adversely affected by Covid is lower.

The opportunity to improve AZ has also been missed, with downstream consequences.  When perfectly healthy men and women drop dead of a blood clot after taking AZ, and the public health messaging is effectively "Don't worry, that only happens randomly to a few people.  Those people are essentially collateral damage in the context of the wider campaign against Covid; they're mere statistics.  Further, we're not going to work to address these safety concerns or improve the vaccine because the number of people affected is too small to really matter."

To many people this deeply irresponsible messaging in the face of such fatal consequences is cause for deferring the vaccine.  

Substitute time for number of injections administered in assessing track record. The former means bugger all.  You could give 1m injections over a month or ten years, the statistical result should be the same. In this pandemic, people are just not appreciating how dense the data is for the efficacy and risks of the vaccines. They don't need many actual years to know.

@iNow LOL!

Edited January 25, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

[Alex_Krycek]

@iNow

Spamming silly memes now?  How mature.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

Given the almost 12 different threads where your misconceptions and seeming inability to grasp scale or probabilities and how very many times you’ve already been corrected, and given how you just keep repeating the same silly claims over and over and over … yes. A little humor seemed appropriate. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by iNow

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

@iNow

Spamming silly memes now?  How mature.

The first one is very on point about a lot of the objections: freedom and personal liberty over public health.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Given the almost 12 different threads where your misconceptions and seeming inability to grasp scale or probabilities and how very many times you’ve already been corrected, and given how you just keep repeating the same silly claims over and over and over … yes. A little humor seemed appropriate. 

You haven't offered conclusive evidence of anything.  You seem incapable of addressing the nuance of this situation, hence your need to revert to childish memes and dismissive over simplifications.    

Edited January 25, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

Just now, Alex_Krycek said:

You haven't offered conclusive evidence of anything.  You seem in capable of addressing the nuance of this situation, hence your need to revert to childish memes and pver simplifications.    

First of all, I’m not the only one correcting you,or offering replies. Resident experts here have engaged you repeatedly as well and they’ve cited multiple works in support of their stance. Those URLs aren’t there just to make a post look pretty or decorate them, you know.

Second of all, what do you wish me to reply to? Happy to answer, but need to remind you that “conclusive” is subjective and as I’ve noted you very much appear emotionally attached to your conclusions. In those situations, more data doesn’t tend to change views… and lots and lots of data has already been provided to you… so forgive me for not taking your request too seriously. 

[Alex_Krycek]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

First of all, I’m not the only one correcting you,or offering replies. Resident experts here have engaged you repeatedly as well and they’ve cited multiple works in support of their stance. Those URLs aren’t there just to make a post look pretty or decorate them, you know.

Second of all, what do you wish me to reply to? Happy to answer, but need to remind you that “conclusive” is subjective and as I’ve noted you very much appear emotionally attached to your conclusions. In those situations, more data doesn’t tend to change views… and lots and lots of data has already been provided to you… so forgive me for not taking your request too seriously. 

This thread is about examining whether a vaccine mandate for NHS staff should be enforced or rescinded.  There are numerous factors to consider: the practical consequences to the NHS with their current staffing issues, reasons why staff might be hesitant to get the vaccine, whether they are justified in their perceptions, what the limit of government power should be in the context of this situation.  

I have heard your views already.  Something to the effect of "These people are stupid and they should just accept whatever mandate is thrown at them"  Copy that - understood the first time.  However there are more elements to this situation than dismissing these people as you choose to do.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

consider: the practical consequences to the NHS with their current staffing issues

Others already correctly noted that this bogeyman argument hasnt come to pass in essentially any situation where it’s been discussed. I think less than 2% of those threatening to resign actually did. Same with NYC firefighters, teachers, and healthcare workers in other regions.

How about you confirm quit rates are actually rising before using it as an argument against healthcare workers vaccinating?

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

reasons why staff might be hesitant to get the vaccine

Reasons generally involve being misinformed and ignorant of the facts. Those who know most are most likely to vaccinate. Those who know least are most likely to avoid it.

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

what the limit of government power should be in the context of this situation

You mean the same government who already mandates other vaccines for those very same workers and has for decades?

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

These people are stupid and they should just accept whatever mandate is thrown at them"

Actually, my view is that unhealthy people seeking care should not be subjected to unvaccinated healthcare workers and that healthcare workers who don’t get vaccinated ought to find another profession where their refusal to vaccinate isn’t further raising the risk for already high risk individuals. 

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

there are more elements to this situation than dismissing these people as you choose to do.

I guess it’s a good thing then that I’ve shared my reasons for that dismissal and presented reasonable arguments in support of it. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Others already correctly noted that this bogeyman argument hasnt come to pass in essentially any situation where it’s been discussed. I think less than 2% of those threatening to resign actually did. Same with NYC firefighters, teachers, and healthcare workers in other regions.

How about you confirm quit rates are actually rising before using it as an argument against healthcare workers vaccinating?

Reasons generally involve being misinformed and ignorant of the facts. Those who know most are most likely to vaccinate. Those who know least are most likely to avoid it.

You mean the same government who already mandates other vaccines for those very same workers and has for decades?

Actually, my view is that unhealthy people seeking care should not be subjected to unvaccinated healthcare workers and that healthcare workers who don’t get vaccinated ought to find another profession where their refusal to vaccinate isn’t further raising the risk for already high risk individuals. 

Quit being such a snowflake. 

You’re simply on the wrong side of this one and are getting taken to task. 

You seem fixated on the idea that this discussion is about you and me.  It's not really about that, sorry.  I'm more interested in the mechanics of this scenario and discussing the potential consequences.  So perhaps you can see beyond the personal tit-for-tat for a change and analyze this situation objectively?

Edited January 25, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So perhaps you can see beyond the personal tit-for-tat for a change and analyze this situation objectively?

I thought he did.
Are you actually reading the replies ?
Is your animosity towards people who arrive at differing conclusions after proper analysis, clouding your reaing comprehension ?

( no, I didn't give you a down vote )

[Alex_Krycek]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I thought he did.
Are you actually reading the replies ?

Of course.  He's repeating the same points as before without addressing the new ones I raised.  

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is your animosity towards people who arrive at differing conclusions after proper analysis, clouding your reaing comprehension ?

( no, I didn't give you a down vote )

No animosity here, or at least not greater than that being directed at me.  

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, first of all, AZ has been linked to blood clots in the past, so your argument that there is no evidence for that is categorically false and uninformed. 

My Mrs had an allergic reaction with an anesthetic process one time. thankfully that is now noted and on her medical record for future references. Many medical procedures may affect a small percentage of people, including vaccines. Overall though, we all still insist on the best medical treatment if and when we are backed into a corner. Both of us had two doses of AZ without any problems. All potential people after a vaccination, (at least in my country) are asked to answer a series of health questions, that will highlight any small risk.

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 There are numerous factors to consider: the practical consequences to the NHS with their current staffing issues, reasons why staff might be hesitant to get the vaccine, whether they are justified in their perceptions, what the limit of government power should be in the context of this situation. 

The main factors to consider are the health advice I would think. It is also mandatory for teachers in my state to be double vaccinated, before school starts next week. In fact consideration is currently being assessed to include the booster in that. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Actually, my view is that unhealthy people seeking care should not be subjected to unvaccinated healthcare workers and that healthcare workers who don’t get vaccinated ought to find another profession where their refusal to vaccinate isn’t further raising the risk for already high risk individuals.  

Bingo! 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

You mean the same government who already mandates other vaccines for those very same workers and has for decades?

Yeah, its funny that, we have vaccines for infants and kids and if they havn't had them, they are refused entry to kindergarten in some places. It seems the small noisy minority are still fixated with the idiocy of Trump, and the conspiracies of Qanon, and evil nature of anything authoritive.

It's Australia Day tomorrow and I will be at Kurnell, the landing place of Captain James Cook in 1770, for initial celebrations, then up to my local club at Bondi, where thsankfully only fully vaxxed are allowed in.

 

Let me finish with 

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few...or the one"

Edited January 25, 2022 by beecee

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Of course.  He's repeating the same points as before without addressing the new ones I raised.  

I note you are so busy correcting others that you still haven't bothered to correct your own false statement.

Vaccination is not mandatory in the UK NHS service.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You seem fixated on the idea that this discussion is about you and me.  It's not really about that, sorry.  I'm more interested in the mechanics of this scenario and discussing the potential consequences.  So perhaps you can see beyond the personal tit-for-tat for a change and analyze this situation objectively?

Asking you to provide citations for data you present is a legitimate request, not something that can be dismissed as a personal tit-for-tat.

[Alex_Krycek]

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

I note you are so busy correcting others that you still haven't bothered to correct your own false statement.

Vaccination is not mandatory in the UK NHS service.

When did I say that it was?

We're discussing a proposed mandate, not one that is already in place.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

When did I say that it was?

 

 

On 1/24/2022 at 12:53 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

Up to 80,000 NHS staff have said they will not comply with the mandatory vaccination policy for Covid -19. 

Quote

Should NHS Staff in the UK Face Mandatory Vaccination?

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

We're discussing a proposed mandate, not one that is already in place.

 

 

1. The UK comprises four nations or countries and some islands, each with their own government.
   In Wales there is no such mandate proposed or in force.
    
2. In England the mandate is already in force, but takes time to implement as might be expectd.
    
3. I do not know the situation in NI or Scotland or the various islands. Do you ?

 

I appreciate you wish to discuss the ethics of this 'mandate' , but I would also appreciate you getting your facts straight beforehand.

[Alex_Krycek]

Another interesting article.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/18/health-department-warning-over-vaccine-mandate-for-nhs-england-staff

Except:

Ministers have been issued with a stark warning over mandatory Covid vaccines for NHS workers in England, with a leaked document saying growing evidence on the Omicron variant casts doubts over the new law’s “rationality” and “proportionality”.

On Tuesday the Royal College of Nursing said the leaked memo should prompt ministers to call a halt to the imposition of compulsory jabs, which it called “reckless”.

“The government should now instigate a major rethink”, said Patricia Marquis, the RCN’s England director. “Mandation is not the answer and sacking valued nursing staff during a workforce crisis is reckless.”

“The low VE [vaccine effectiveness] against infection (and consequently effect on transmission) plus the lower risk posed by Omicron brings into question both the rationality of the VCOD2 policy and its proportionality and makes the case for vaccination requirement weaker than when [ministers] decided on the policy.

“The evidence base on which MPs voted on VCOD2 has now changed and we may see more objections from MPs, increased media interest and higher likelihood of judicial review.”

“Now we’ve learned more about both vaccine efficacy against Omicron transmission and its severity, it looks increasingly foolish.

“Ministers would be wise to rethink the policy and avoid putting even more pressure on our NHS by sacking tens of thousands of health and social care workers in the next few weeks. When you know something won’t work, it’s right to change course.”

Hospital bosses have voiced rising concerns that they may have to close entire units and send patients elsewhere for treatment because the enforced dismissal of unvaccinated staff means they cannot run safely. There is particular concern about maternity units as hospitals are already 2,500 midwives short.

Matthew Trainer, the chief executive of Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust in London, said last week that the loss of unvaccinated midwives, coupled with the fact that it already had a 10% vacancy rate among those specialists, “would put us in quite a serious position”.

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Except:

I presume you mean excerpt ?

 

20 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Another interesting article.

Yes there are dissenting voices, but your article confirms that the situation (in England) is still a 'compulsory' one.

However I would recommend you read more widely than the Guardian, with its sensationalist style and agenda.

 

For my part I note that here we have a classic tussle between the competing requirements of rights and duties.

Every 'right' comes with a limiting duty to use that right or freedom properly.

In this case I think the balance is on the duty side of the scale.

I doubt that there is anyone at all who could literally do any job whatsoever.
We all have to accept there are some jobs we would not be able to do for one reason or another.
Much as I support helping blind persons, I would accept being driven by a blind taxi driver or airline pilot.
An extreme situation I know, but illustrative of the tussle I mentioned at the outset.

[CharonY]

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Substitute time for number of injections administered in assessing track record. The former means bugger all.  You could give 1m injections over a month or ten years, the statistical result should be the same. In this pandemic, people are just not appreciating how dense the data is for the efficacy and risks of the vaccines. They don't need many actual years to know.

@iNow LOL!

Exactly. By now there are over 9 billion doses administered. I doubt that there is any single vaccine out there that has a number close to that by several orders of magnitude before being used routinely/being mandated. Time is just a distraction folks use to justify their opinion.

Edit: and quite some of those folks would be happy to take a drug that has been tested by a few thousand folks at most. As long as it does not say "vaccine", apparently.

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

I presume you mean excerpt ?

 

Yes there are dissenting voices, but your article confirms that the situation (in England) is still a 'compulsory' one.

However I would recommend you read more widely than the Guardian, with its sensationalist style and agenda.

 

For my part I note that here we have a classic tussle between the competing requirements of rights and duties.

Every 'right' comes with a limiting duty to use that right or freedom properly.

In this case I think the balance is on the duty side of the scale.

I doubt that there is anyone at all who could literally do any job whatsoever.
We all have to accept there are some jobs we would not be able to do for one reason or another.
Much as I support helping blind persons, I would accept being driven by a blind taxi driver or airline pilot.
An extreme situation I know, but illustrative of the tussle I mentioned at the outset.

Interestingly enough most of the articles as well in OP are not arguing about freedom or rights, but more about practicability. I.e. the main reason not to have the mandate is that one might lose folks. I.e. the idea seems to be that policies should somehow be determined by a small proportion of the uninformed.