Should NHS Staff in the UK Face Mandatory Vaccination?

[iNow]

We have a shortage of truck / lorry drivers. We clearly MUST stop expecting them to get a proper license before heading out on to our roads and into our towns! Pfft... Expecting drivers to prove their skill and willingness to apply the brakes early and often before getting behind the wheel... Where will this tyranny end!!1!!one!2!1!

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

We have a shortage of truck / lorry drivers. We clearly MUST stop expecting them to get a proper license before heading out on to our roads and into our towns! Pfft... Expecting drivers to prove their skill and willingness to apply the brakes early and often before getting behind the wheel... Where will this tyranny end!!1!!one!2!1!

The fun bit is that we can copy/paste the whole discussion here and post it again once we got another larger disease outbreak. I mean, it is said that history does not repeat itself but it often rhymes, but I think some folks have not gotten the memo.

[zapatos]

WARNING: Off-topic rant about to begin. Feel free to ignore.

<start rant>

It is all just so stupid that I think people fight against mandates not because of something they believe in, but because they enjoy being angry about something.

I laugh every time I see a video of someone on a plane who sits in their assigned seat, makes sure their tray table is secured & their seats are in the upright and locked position, has their approved-size carry-on luggage properly secured in the overhead or under the seat in front of them, turns their cell phone to airplane mode, opens their window shade, fastens their seatbelt, then throws a hissy fit because they are asked to wear a piece of cloth over their nose and mouth.

Clearly it is not personal freedom they are fighting for, but the right to berate flight attendants who didn't make up the rules in the first place.

Same thing with vaccine mandates.  People who don't want a business owner to be able to require they meet safety standards insist business owners should be able to deny serving people who are gay. Vaccines make your balls shrink, they cause more deaths than COVID, they don't work, they were developed too quickly, they are an unproven technology, they'll cause your workforce to quit, they'll result in Armageddon! 

Are people who fight against vaccine mandates also fighting against training mandates, hand washing mandates, speed limits in the hospital parking lot, uniforms, complete documentation, and the literally thousands of mandates from government that cover hospital operations?

These people exhaust me.

<end rant>

[Arete]

19 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

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

OK, so the vast majority of mRNA vaccine components (i.e. lipids, PBS and sucrose) have been in use in various medications for decades. 

The only active component that could be considered novel is a strand of mRNA that encodes the SARS COV 2 S protein. 

Do you know what else mRNA is in? EVERY ORGANISMAL CELL ON THE PLANET. Every time you eat, breathe and drink you ingest mRNA. Your gut microbiome produces billions of strands of foreign mRNA inside your body every day, which can and do cross the gut epithelium into the bloodstream.

Also, the mRNA from the vaccines is cleared from the body in around 72 hours, the spike proteins encoded by them in 21 days. 

So, given how ubiquitously and frequently your cells encounter foreign mRNA molecules, and that no component of the vaccine actually persists in the body long term, by what mechanism would the mRNA cause an adverse reaction years after the fact? 

I mean, no one knows if you sprout wings out your butt 30 years after drinking Monster Energy, but there's not really a mechanism that would lend itself to that being a realistic concern.  

[TheVat]

50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

WARNING: Off-topic rant about to begin. Feel free to ignore.

<start rant>

It is all just so stupid that I think people fight against mandates not because of something they believe in, but because they enjoy being angry about something.

I laugh every time I see a video of someone on a plane who sits in their assigned seat, makes sure their tray table is secured & their seats are in the upright and locked position, has their approved-size carry-on luggage properly secured in the overhead or under the seat in front of them, turns their cell phone to airplane mode, opens their window shade, fastens their seatbelt, then throws a hissy fit because they are asked to wear a piece of cloth over their nose and mouth.

Clearly it is not personal freedom they are fighting for, but the right to berate flight attendants who didn't make up the rules in the first place.

Same thing with vaccine mandates.  People who don't want a business owner to be able to require they meet safety standards insist business owners should be able to deny serving people who are gay. Vaccines make your balls shrink, they cause more deaths than COVID, they don't work, they were developed too quickly, they are an unproven technology, they'll cause your workforce to quit, they'll result in Armageddon! 

Are people who fight against vaccine mandates also fighting against training mandates, hand washing mandates, speed limits in the hospital parking lot, uniforms, complete documentation, and the literally thousands of mandates from government that cover hospital operations?

These people exhaust me.

<end rant>

 

That was disturbingly on-topic for an off-topic rant.  You keep veering into relevance.  Plus one.

What always amuses me is that people laser-focus on dangerous side effects of a technology when they already have an axe to grind.  Cellphones, when held to the ear in extended use, have been linked to brain cancer and acoustic neuromas, and I have seen not one placard-waving fist-shaking demonstration against cellphones.  And no one has refused to use a cellphone when their occupation requires it.  

8 minutes ago, Arete said:

OK, so the vast majority of mRNA vaccine components (i.e. lipids, PBS and sucrose) have been in use in various medications for decades. 

The only active component that could be considered novel is a strand of mRNA that encodes the SARS COV 2 S protein. 

Do you know what else mRNA is in? EVERY ORGANISMAL CELL ON THE PLANET. Every time you eat, breathe and drink you ingest mRNA. Your gut microbiome produces billions of strands of foreign mRNA inside your body every day, which can and do cross the gut epithelium into the bloodstream.

Also, the mRNA from the vaccines is cleared from the body in around 72 hours, the spike proteins encoded by them in 21 days. 

So, given how ubiquitously and frequently your cells encounter foreign mRNA molecules, and that no component of the vaccine actually persists in the body long term, by what mechanism would the mRNA cause an adverse reaction years after the fact? 

I mean, no one knows if you sprout wings out your butt 30 years after drinking Monster Energy, but there's not really a mechanism that would lend itself to that being a realistic concern.  

What further erodes the honesty of the mRNA bogeyman argument is that there are other Covid vaccines that use a more traditional simian adenovirus vector, like JJ and AZ, so the mRNA resistant do have options that will not cause the dreaded butt wings or whatever the trending phobia is.  I live in the boondocks, and pretty much every pharmacy in the area had the option of a non mRNA vax.

[Alex_Krycek]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

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.

Are they uninformed?  I question that.  I think these healthcare workers are actually hyperaware of the data surrounding the vaccine (AZ in particular, since we're focusing on the UK).  While the majority of the general public doesn't focus on the small chance they will be fatally impacted by a thrombotic event, these employees would likely be quite cognizant that there's a real chance such consequences could impact them directly.  As I mentioned previously, the fact that these events happen and are viewed as acceptable collateral damage, with no effort to improve the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, can't be too encouraging.

They're weighing this risk against the possibility of being seriously impacted by Covid, and determining the vaccine isn't worth it.  Patricia Marquis, from RCN England made that same point (see my post above).

Now, you can call these workers "uninformed" if you want to.  It's reassuring to wield self righteous anger at a chosen out-group that you can collectively ostracize.  But the fact is in a free society with free access to information, these workers have a choice to interpret the data and risk as they see fit, and act accordingly.  

Which brings us to the question of the effect on the NHS as a system, and whether the mandate is actually worth it from a systems perspective.  Many in the NHS feel the harm done to the patients would be measurably greater with these impending staff shortages than if employees are allowed to work unvaccinated.  Just how far is this crusade to forcibly vaccinate everyone prepared to go and at what immediate cost?  Do the ends really justify the means? 

I don't think they do, and neither do many others.  

 

[CharonY]

40 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Are they uninformed?  I question that.

The unvaccinated healthcare workers are a small group. Disproportionately smaller than the average population. Moreover, as already mentioned, the level of training on that matter is inversely proportionate to vaccine hesitancy (i.e. MD < Nurses < paramedics < support staff). 

And I note that you are now moving away from the scary "new" mRNA vaccine and now it is adenovirus-base vaccines. As it is, the risk is still orders of magnitude lower than getting blood clots following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. And hey, if you are in a high risk group, you have other vaccines to choose from. But that is of course not the point, is it? It is about not wanting a vaccine and trying to find excuses for it. 

Geez, I wonder why did not squash the pandemic yet.

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is about not wanting a vaccine and trying to find excuses for it. 

QFT

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Many in the NHS feel the harm done to the patients would be measurably greater with these impending staff shortages than if employees are allowed to work unvaccinated

Where exactly was it established that vaccine mandates worsen staffing shortages… so much worse, in fact, that mandating vaccines is more detrimental to patient wellbeing than allowing unvaccinated healthcare workers to continue working directly with vulnerable and immunocompromised patient populations?

Asking bc I’m 99.99% sure you’ve evaded this question the other 7 or 12 times it’s been asked if you. 

[Alex_Krycek]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Asking bc I’m 99.99% sure you’ve evaded this question the other 7 or 12 times it’s been asked if you. 

And I'm 99% sure you haven't read any of the resources I have posted establishing this point. 

[iNow]

Which one confirms please?

[Arete]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Are they uninformed?  I question that. ...They're weighing this risk against the possibility of being seriously impacted by Covid, and determining the vaccine isn't worth it.

 

R₀ of the SARS COV 2 Omicron variant: 10

Risk of thromboembolism as a result of COVID infection: one in 5

Risk of thromboembolism as a result of AZ vaccine: one in 50,000

Uninformed/undereducated is one possibility. Phenomenally bad at math is another. 

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I don't think they do, and neither do many others.  

To be blunt you're wrong and so are "they". Like not in a philosophical, "lesser evil. two sides of the coin" way - but more of a "mathematically defined to a near incalculable degree of probability" way. Vaccinating a human population for COVID19 will result in fewer deaths and loss of QALYs than not vaccinating the population, unequivocally. 

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Arete

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The unvaccinated healthcare workers are a small group. Disproportionately smaller than the average population. Moreover, as already mentioned, the level of training on that matter is inversely proportionate to vaccine hesitancy (i.e. MD < Nurses < paramedics < support staff). 

And I note that you are now moving away from the scary "new" mRNA vaccine and now it is adenovirus-base vaccines. As it is, the risk is still orders of magnitude lower than getting blood clots following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. And hey, if you are in a high risk group, you have other vaccines to choose from. But that is of course not the point, is it? It is about not wanting a vaccine and trying to find excuses for it. 

Geez, I wonder why did not squash the pandemic yet.

Here's some latest numbers on hesitancy distribution, within the NHS, in the BMJ:

Quote

 

Covid-19: How prepared is England’s NHS for mandatory vaccination?
BMJ 2022; 376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o192 (Published 24 January 2022)

Is there variation among different groups of staff or specialties?

Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that as at 31 December 2021 83% of health professionals had received three vaccine doses but that uptake varied between staff groups.6 Some 9% of care workers and home carers, 8% of medical practitioners (which includes all generalist and specialist doctors), 7% of nursing auxiliaries and assistants, 7% of pharmacists, 6% of midwives, 5% of nurses, 5% of medical secretaries, and 4% of healthcare practice managers were unvaccinated. Among all professions, “health associate professionals,” which includes acupuncturists, homoeopaths, and reflexologists, had the highest rate of unvaccinated staff at 19%.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o192

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by StringJunky

[Alex_Krycek]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which one confirms please?

Another interesting article.

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

Excerpt:

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”.

19 minutes ago, Arete said:

To be blunt you're wrong and so are "they". Like not in a philosophical, "lesser evil. two sides of the coin" way - but more of a "mathematically defined to a near incalculable degree of probability" way. Vaccinating a human population for COVID19 will result in fewer deaths and loss of QALYs than not vaccinating the population, unequivocally. 

 

Recent data on deaths caused by Covid -19 (in the UK) from the Office of National Statistics calls this into question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw&t=57s

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[iNow]

On 1/24/2022 at 9:43 AM, iNow said:

you just won't let the evidence change your mind. You're too emotionally committed to your preconceived conclusions

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by iNow

[Alex_Krycek]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

 

Seems more applicable to you.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Hospital bosses have voiced rising concerns

I’m not seeing evidence that loss of staff from resignations due to vaccine mandate will cause more deaths than unvaccinated staff being around vulnerable patients. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by iNow

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Here's some latest numbers on hesitancy distribution, within the NHS, in the BMJ:

 

Good find. Apparently the situation in UK is different to Canadian and US surveys, so I shouldn't have generalized it that much.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Recent data on deaths caused by Covid -19 (in the UK) from the Office of National Statistics calls this into question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw&t=57s

I will note that instead of specifying what exactly is being called to question or at least providing a report from the Office of National Statistics so that one can try to establish context you again want us to watch a youtube video.

But that is the modus operandi of the pro-virus lobby, isn't it? Sow doubt while being as vague as possible. And when specific claims are refuted, quickly pivot to something  else or hide the goalposts where the sun doesn't shine.

[Alex_Krycek]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Good find. Apparently the situation in UK is different to Canadian and US surveys, so I shouldn't have generalized it that much.

I will note that instead of specifying what exactly is being called to question or at least providing a report from the Office of National Statistics so that one can try to establish context you again want us to watch a youtube video.

But that is the modus operandi of the pro-virus lobby, isn't it? Sow doubt while being as vague as possible. And when specific claims are refuted, quickly pivot to something  else or hide the goalposts where the sun doesn't shine.

Dr. Campbell isn't anti-vax.  He's an ardent supporter of the vaccine and encourages his viewers to get it.

Here's the bullet points of the data he discusses in the video.  The data shows that number of deaths attributable to Covid is far lower than once thought.

--------

127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average

Official data https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai...

--------

Deaths from COVID-19 with no other underlying causes

FOI Ref: FOI/2021/3240 https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transp...

-----

Death registrations for 2020 and 2021 for deaths where COVID-19 was listed as the underlying cause, but had no other pre-existing conditions recorded on the death certificate, England and Wales

2020 Total deaths, 9,400

0-64, 1,549

65 and over, 7,851

-------

2021 Q1 Total deaths, 6,483

0-64, 1,560

65 and over, 4,923

-------

2021 Q2 Total deaths, 346

0-64, 153

65 and over, 193

-------

2021 Q3, Total deaths, 1,142

0-64, 512

65 and over, 630

-------

Therefore, 2020 and first 3 quarters of 2021

Total deaths from covid alone, 17,371

Of this number 13,597 were 65 or over

Of this number, 3,774 were under 65

-------

Average age of death in UK from covid in 2021 82.5 years

Average life expectancy in the UK, 2018 to 2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati...

79.0 years for males 82.9 years for females

This represents a fall of 7.0 weeks for males and a slight increase of 0.5 weeks for females (from the latest non-overlapping period of 2015 to 2017)

This is the first time we have seen a decline when comparing non-overlapping time periods since the series began in the early 1980s

-------

The entire presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw&t=57s

 

[Prometheus]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Patricia Marquis, from RCN England made that same point...

It's worth noting that the RCN is a trade union (and in my professional opinion (ex NHS nurse) a poor one - but that's another thread), not a medical body. They do not make decisions based on medical evidence any more than the RMT (transport) union does.

Which is not to say their points may or may not be valid in regards to workers rights, only that they are not a medical authority.

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Dr. Campbell isn't anti-vax.  He's an ardent supporter of the vaccine and encourages his viewers to get it.

Here's the bullet points of the data he discusses in the video.  The data shows that number of deaths attributable to Covid is far lower than once thought.

--------

127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average

Official data https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai...

--------

Deaths from COVID-19 with no other underlying causes

FOI Ref: FOI/2021/3240 https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transp...

-----

Death registrations for 2020 and 2021 for deaths where COVID-19 was listed as the underlying cause, but had no other pre-existing conditions recorded on the death certificate, England and Wales

2020 Total deaths, 9,400

0-64, 1,549

65 and over, 7,851

-------

2021 Q1 Total deaths, 6,483

0-64, 1,560

65 and over, 4,923

-------

2021 Q2 Total deaths, 346

0-64, 153

65 and over, 193

-------

2021 Q3, Total deaths, 1,142

0-64, 512

65 and over, 630

-------

Therefore, 2020 and first 3 quarters of 2021

Total deaths from covid alone, 17,371

Of this number 13,597 were 65 or over

Of this number, 3,774 were under 65

-------

Average age of death in UK from covid in 2021 82.5 years

Average life expectancy in the UK, 2018 to 2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati...

79.0 years for males 82.9 years for females

This represents a fall of 7.0 weeks for males and a slight increase of 0.5 weeks for females (from the latest non-overlapping period of 2015 to 2017)

This is the first time we have seen a decline when comparing non-overlapping time periods since the series began in the early 1980s

-------

The entire presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw&t=57s

 

Your links are a bit screwed up and your claims are again rather vague. But from what I gather you seem to imply that the official numbers of ca. 150k deaths are inaccurate and only deaths with COVID-19 as with any pre-existing conditions should be removed. I will also say that your claim that ONS made the claim that the death numbers are inflated are wrong. They never made that claim, and the claim is in fact based on misrepresentation or cherry-picking of the FOI request.

I will give the benefit of doubt and assume that it is based on misunderstanding rather than willfulness. I will say, however, that this is again a tactic used by folks since the beginning of the pandemic to play down the disease. In 2020 the mantra was that it is just a flu and now the insane claim that people die with rather than of COVID-19. I will start with discussing why pre-existing conditions matter, but also add some more general points with regard to excess deaths, if I still have time.

Pre-existing conditions:

We know that there are comorbidities that increase the likelihood of death. Excluding folks at risk from death by the disease from the statistic is like excluding folks with a driver's license from vehicular deaths. Moreover, older individuals also are more likely to have some sort of comorbidity. One of the biggest risk factor is diabetes as well as other chronic inflammation. In these individuals an infection with SARS-CoV-2 has a very high risk to trigger a fatal sequence of events leading to death. Obesity is another risk factor and if we exclude all obese folks from death statistics, it would be around 1/3 of the UK population from most death statistics. How would that make sense?

Also note that the death is generally speaking never caused by COVID-19. You die of some complications related to it, such as renal or lung failure, blood clots and so on.

In other words, the claim here is that if we exclude factors that increase the risk the death of COVID-19, then the expected COVID-19 deaths would be lower, which is is not really insightful nor does it change how lethal the disease is in the current population, wher enot everyone is 20 and healthy. 

The claim of deaths with rather than by COVID-19 is also directly targeted by other health agencies (I don't think the UK does make the distinction, but I may also just have missed it) where a distinction is made whether a distinction is made with COVID-19 as the underlying cause (i.e. what initiates the events leading to death) rather than contributing cause. See the guidelines here https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

In the general overview (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/mortality-overview.htm) you can se that about 90% of all deaths related to COVID-19 are indicated to be underlying cause with the rest being mentioned as contributing (there is a finer data set somewhere, but I am running out of time).

In other words, the death statistics are overwhelmingly reflecting the deaths caused by COVID-19 rather than incidental deaths. Unless Brits are very different there is not reason to assume that there will be fundamental differences. In other words, there is no basis for the claim that deaths are massively overcounted.

 

 

 

[Arete]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

In other words, the death statistics are overwhelmingly reflecting the deaths caused by COVID-19 rather than incidental deaths. Unless Brits are very different there is not reason to assume that there will be fundamental differences. In other words, there is no basis for the claim that deaths are massively overcounted.

Not to mention that the difference in biasing the data this way is that the vaccine vs COVID-19 risk analysis comes out in a favor of the vaccine by 5 orders of magnitude instead of 7. 

[iNow]

On 1/25/2022 at 9:51 PM, iNow said:

I’m not seeing evidence that loss of staff from resignations due to vaccine mandate will cause more deaths than unvaccinated staff being around vulnerable patients. 

Perhaps whoever neg repped me for this post can explain why this entirely fair and valid observation caused such an emotional reaction in you? 

[Mark78L]

"Should vaccines be mandated for NHS staff?"

I think that entirely depends upon the threat posed by a disease and the safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine.

A vaccine proven to be effective at protecting others as well as the recipient, that has a very good safety profile with long term safety data to support it, is very different from an experimental vaccine that does not protect others, has no long-term safety data and has questionable efficacy to boot, and especially where the full trial data has not been released or normal clinical trial protocol followed.

The latter example should clearly not be mandatory especially if natural immunity is being ignored - a mandatory vaccine for someone already immune poses a heightened risk to the recipient with little to no benefit for others while ignoring the robust protection a doctor or nurse may have already acquired.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

I think that entirely depends upon the threat posed by a disease and the safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine.

So, should it be mandated for the NHS staff or not?