Should NHS Staff in the UK Face Mandatory Vaccination?

[studiot]

On 1/25/2022 at 10:56 AM, 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.

Would the uninformed troll who just went back over this thread sprinkling red marks around and in particular to this post own up and justify what they think was incorrect about this post.

Covid vaccination has never has been mandatory in the NHS in the UK, nor was it ever proposed to be.

I await their apology when they have fully checked their 'facts'.

 

[Mark78L]

20 hours ago, Arete said:

The fact a phase III clinical trail MAY take a year =/= minimum requirement. 

The duration of clinical trials is, more often than not, dictated by finances - A company on the hook for the cost of clinical trial would never proceed to Phase 2 trials until the conclusion of successful Phase 1 trials due to the financial risk - massive public investment in these trials allowed for concurrent safety and efficacy trials, compressing the timeline by several years. 

Also, the COVID vaccine trials utilized unprecedented streamlining of regulatory processes - emergency scheduling of panels, skipping of lines for other approvals, etc. reducing the bureaucratic processing time from several months to days.

Given the unprecedented manner in which these trials were conducted, the data is actually much denser than is typical for e.g. approval for the flu shot. 

Also, The vaccines all seem to reduce transmission by 40-60% https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2107717

You're unfortunately using old data based upon the alpha and delta variant, we are now into Omicron. A similar study in the Lancet found that transmission in vaccinated was 25% compared with 38% in unvaccinated, this was again with delta
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

Here it was found that the viral load was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v6

Please see previous comments regarding long term studies, and the fact that the current vaccine trail doesn't finish until 2023, highlighting that all the safety data isn't collated yet.
 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

How condescending are you?

I get that way when I see folks too lazy to to check their own sources and as a result promote dangerous misinformation. Especially when the claims are ridiculous. PhaseI is never dropped as it is a requirement to recruit a larger cohort (especially if preclinical data is lacking)

From your link:

Quote

With large sums given to vaccine firms by public funders and private philanthropists, “they could do preclinical and phase I, II and III trials, as well as manufacturing, in parallel instead of sequentially”, says Rino Rappuoli, 

How does it square with your claim that:

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

1, 2) Phase 1 trials were dropped, already this is questionable.

It is bad (but perhaps not fatal) to misunderstand something. But it is worse to spread misinformation and then put in a link that contradicts the assertion, apparently hoping that folks would not read.

Heck, here is a graph showing the timeline and the overlap between I/II/III. There is misunderstanding, which I am happy to help clear up and there is willful misrepresentation. This is not an example of the former.

I also note that you entirely missed the issue of endpoints and rather seem to develop an own idea how trials should be rather how they are in reality.

 

Edit:

39 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

You're unfortunately using old data based upon the alpha and delta variant, we are now into Omicron.

It is a bit rich in accusing someone of using outdated data and then present papers to delta. That aside the percentage in the paper refer to the secondary attack rate (SAR), which is basically the ratio between numbers of new cases among contacts to the total number of contacts. A SAR of 25% would indicate one new infection after four contacts, whereas a SAR of 38% would indicate one infection after 2.6 contacts (i.e. vaccination resulted in a reduction by ca. 34%). 

There are a couple of more studies out there but fundamentally they roughly show that vaccinations in delta reduce transmission roughly by half (some show more, some less).

The authors do describe why they had overall SAR, and this is because they measured most of it in household settings, where SAR is higher due to ongoing contact with an infected person. 

With regard to omicron, studies found that two shots do not confer much of immunity anymore, but a booster shot still reduces transmission by half (i.e. comparable to two-shots with delta). The immunity does go down with time, but is still protective for at least 6 months.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1050721/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-4.pdf

See page 14.

I will reiterate, we are entering a new phase where proper risk assessment is going to be increasingly relevant. Spreading misinformation has  contributed significantly to the disease burden and deaths we have seen so far and we have to take a strong stance against it. 

I do get that being anti-consensus can make one feel like something special, but here we are not talking about something theoretical ideas. Here, our actions have immediate impact on those around us and we have seen that misinformation kills. I am happy to address and discuss things that may be confusing, as frankly the whole mess is not necessarily straightforward. However disseminating outright misinformation is dangerous and should be treated like spread of similar dangerous information. I am pretty sure that at this point more folks died from misinformation related to COVID-19 than from trying to do dangerous experiments, for example, and we have a policy against the latter.

[Arete]

X-post with CharonY's edit

Second edit just point out that that the Lancet study did not achieve a statistically significant result, primarily due to the fact they only observed 12 breakthrough transmission events. Even then, as CharonY points out - it demonstrates a 34% reduction in transmission.

Also back to a more central point - if your concern is the prospect of acute myocarditis; acute myocarditis is observed in 0.146% COVID-19 cases in >16 year olds, and 0.0071% of vaccinated >16 year olds. COVID infection therefore has a 20 fold increase in the risk of acute myocarditis than BNT162b2 vaccine. So if the claim is that the long term effects of S protein induced myocarditis are unknown, you have a very succinct mathematical risk analysis between the risk of acquiring natural immunity vs vaccine immunity.  If the claim is that administration of the BNT162b2 vaccine may cause acute myocarditis months/years after the fact, you should be able to demonstrate mechanism given the constant exposure to microbial mRNA that all humans experience. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Arete

[CharonY]

Very good points. I also wanted to add that due to the exponential nature of spread, even moderate reduction in transmissions per infection event can change the timeline with which hospitals fill up dramatically. It is not an all or nothing situation.

[studiot]

19 hours ago, Mark78L said:

You're unfortunately using old data based upon the alpha and delta variant, we are now into Omicron.

Any study on covid vaccination will be out of date before it is even drafted, let alone published.

This is because the rate of vaccination is and has been so high and also been age and other group selective, that the sample space completely changes on a daily basis.

We should let our best minds do the best they can with any data available at the time they have to act and not criticise them with 2020 hindisght.

[Mark78L]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Any study on covid vaccination will be out of date before it is even drafted, let alone published.

This is because the rate of vaccination is and has been so high and also been age and other group selective, that the sample space completely changes on a daily basis.

We should let our best minds do the best they can with any data available at the time they have to act and not criticise them with 2020 hindisght.

I think the point you are missing is that more relevant / recent data is available - why use old data? Doing so indicates a misinformed view or confirmation bias. 

 

19 hours ago, Arete said:

Also back to a more central point - if your concern is the prospect of acute myocarditis; acute myocarditis is observed in 0.146% COVID-19 cases in >16 year olds, and 0.0071% of vaccinated >16 year olds. COVID infection therefore has a 20 fold increase in the risk of acute myocarditis than BNT162b2 vaccine. 

Please provide the evidence for these statistics.

[Arete]

Just now, Mark78L said:

Please provide the evidence for these statistics.

I did. You literally just quoted the links to the peer reviewed papers. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Arete

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

I think the point you are missing is that more relevant / recent data is available - why use old data? Doing so indicates a misinformed view or confirmation bias. 

 

 

Au contraire it you who has missed the point.

For instance it is on record that between March 20th 2021 and March 21 2021 nearly a million does were administered (844,285) in the UK.

Please refer me to any study that takes account of that recorded population difference in one 24 hour period.

It should be noted that that was the third record fifigure in a row so the population had made similar vast changes in the preceding days.

Nothing has changed by February 2022, except that other countries have been catching up and the bigger ones overtaking that figure.

Edited February 9, 2022 by studiot

[beecee]

23 hours ago, Mark78L said:

 I get the impression that this forum has devolved into an echo chamber for those who simply want to believe in the official narrative. And rather than using evidence, misguided opinion seems to be the order of the day.

I get the impresion that you seem to think we are all, (those that accept the official narrative) being hoodwinked by a grand conspiracy. Why would they do that? Do you also believe in other conspiracies?

[TheVat]

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

Enough sardines!

 

 

 

 

[Mark78L]

On 2/9/2022 at 9:09 PM, Mark78L said:

...acute myocarditis is observed in 0.146% COVID-19 cases in >16 year olds, and 0.0071% of vaccinated >16 year olds. COVID infection therefore has a 20 fold increase in the risk of acute myocarditis than BNT162b2 vaccine

Your interpretation of the data is disingenuous, and conclusion incorrect which appears to expose your intention to mislead. I can accuse you of the latter because you are a biology expert, and should therefore be aware of the following major errors in your conclusion - which you did not draw attention to:

1. The 0.146% figure you quote is only for hospitalised patients with Covid not all cases of covid! Naturally excluding the vast majority of people who test positive (or have covid) without needing to be hospitalised means that the true risk of myocarditis in the population who get infected would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the 0.146% figure you disingenuously claim is the figure that represents the overall risk of myocarditis from catching covid.
2. Underlying medical conditions and alternative etiologies for myocarditis (e.g., autoimmune disease) were not ascertained or excluded.
3. The spurious vaccinated figure of 0.0071% not only seems to be a miscalculation on your part (please provide your workings) but this figure is taken from VAERS, which as you know, is a passive reporting system - meaning the data is greatly inaccurate. It is claimed that only 1-10% of vaccine injury cases are reported, in other words your conclusion is gross under-calculation of the actual threat.

It's extremely concerning that someone of your alleged medical expertise has ignored these major limitations, failed to point them out and presented misleading data to generate what is essentially a glaringly obvious false conclusion. 

I recommend you consider your own confirmation bias.

On 2/9/2022 at 10:13 PM, beecee said:

I get the impresion that you seem to think we are all, (those that accept the official narrative) being hoodwinked by a grand conspiracy. Why would they do that? Do you also believe in other conspiracies?

I just find it very odd on a science forum that very few appear to be open-minded, choosing instead to defend the status quo as if the majority are always correct, that's not objective critical thinking, it's defending dogma. It's also strange that you are mentioning conspiracy theories when all I've been doing is questioning the science - scientists and politicians do get things wrong you know, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It seems like you are implying that the official narrative is always correct - meaning politicians and scientists never get things wrong.

Besides the word conspiracy is synonymous with corruption - are you saying conspiracies don't exist? Because if you are this implies that corruption doesn't exist. This type of thinking echo's that of a closed-mind.

[Mark78L]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

Your interpretation of the data is disingenuous, and conclusion incorrect which appears to expose your intention to mislead. I can accuse you of the latter because you are a biology expert, and should therefore be aware of the following major errors in your conclusion - which you did not draw attention to:

1. The 0.146% figure you quote is only for hospitalised patients with Covid not all cases of covid! Naturally excluding the vast majority of people who test positive (or have covid) without needing to be hospitalised means that the true risk of myocarditis in the population who get infected would be many orders of magnitude smaller than the 0.146% figure you disingenuously claim is the figure that represents the overall risk of myocarditis from catching covid.
2. Underlying medical conditions and alternative etiologies for myocarditis (e.g., autoimmune disease) were not ascertained or excluded.
3. The spurious vaccinated figure of 0.0071% not only seems to be a miscalculation on your part (please provide your workings) but this figure is taken from VAERS, which as you know, is a passive reporting system - meaning the data is greatly inaccurate. It is claimed that only 1-10% of vaccine injury cases are reported, in other words your conclusion is gross under-calculation of the actual threat.

It's extremely concerning that someone of your alleged medical expertise has ignored these major limitations, failed to point them out and presented misleading data to generate what is essentially a glaringly obvious false conclusion. 

I recommend you consider your own confirmation bias.

Am I getting voted down for pointing out major errors? Making accusations of intent to mislead? Or simply because you don't like it when someone challenges your opinions with reasonable arguments? Nothing I've said here is controversial - maybe a little adversarial - but certainly nothing out of the ordinary.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Mark78L

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Mark78L said:

Am I getting voted down for pointing out major errors?

Maybe you can first explain your reason for doing down voting the entire thread. I imagine others have responded to that 

Anyway, I’ve given you one or two for arguing in bad faith, like bitching about nobody supplying citations when the post you quoted and responded to when making that accusation was itself full of citations. 

On 2/9/2022 at 4:39 PM, TheVat said:

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

Enough sardines!

Indeed 

Edited February 12, 2022 by iNow

[Mark78L]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe you can first explain your reason for doing down voting the entire thread. I imagine others have responded to that 

I haven't. Only the points I disagree with that are not a genuine attempt to present an objective argument, or attempts to demean:

For example how is implying I'm sealioning (The Vat) a constructive contribution? It's not, so it gets a down vote. And yet I put forward many reasonable arguments, and yet they are down-voted. This is hardly an objective forum.

Arete has clearly been disingenuous with the figures presented, I point that out as any critical thinker should do - and it gets down-voted? I'm sorry, are we not allowed to point out when people are wrong? You lot seem to be more than happy to dish it out, just not so happy to receive it back. Shame, and petty.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Mark78L

[iNow]

Right. Whatever. Cheerio 

[Mark78L]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Right. Whatever. Cheerio 

That response tells me everything I need to know. The words, echo chamber, bruised ego's, and closed-mindedness spring to mind when describing this forum. 

[mistermack]

On 2/8/2022 at 10:24 PM, Mark78L said:

You've made many misconceptions I'm afraid. Each vaccine's efficacy and safety need to be taken in context and on their own merits. Yes vaccination is good, but not all vaccines are made equal, it is naive to assume that all vaccines are good. Vaccinating a child at near zero risk of covid, with an experimental vaccine that has no long-term safety data when that child has already developed natural immunity is immoral, unethical and scientifically unjustifiable especially given the increased risk of myocarditis, and the fact that this risk has not been studied, not to mention over stimulation of the immune system. Since when has it been acceptable to experiment on children?

I think you should look up the word logic, because I'm afraid you've not applied it here.

I did, but you didn't follow it. Firstly, your own logic is sadly lacking. I'm not aware of any children working in the UK national health service. If you know different, I await your link. 

Secondly, even if there are long term effects from the vaccinations, you would have to set them against the KNOWN long term effects of long covid, to establish whether it's safer to be vaccinated or not. There is a wealth of evidence for the adverse effects of long covid. Maybe you think people are making it up? And then of course, there's death from covid, which can also have long-term effects. Where is your evidence that these unknown long-term effects of vaccination can possibly match and exceed the real and proven harm that covid can dish out?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Mark78L said:

That response tells me everything I need to know. The words, echo chamber, bruised ego's, and closed-mindedness spring to mind when describing this forum. 

Your opinion means a lot to me. I’m broken right now. Downright shattered by your harsh views and dislike of this community. I may never recover.

Rejecting creationism and acknowledging the validity of evolution… supporting the evidence backed consensus position of natural selection… does not mean there’s an echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play. 

Dismissing deniers of anthropogenic climate change… supporting the evidence backed consensus position on the primary drivers of global warming… does not mean there’s an echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play. 

In much the same way, having no more patience for this sort of anti-vaccination foolishness and Ayn Rand style childish libertarianism in now year 3 of a global pandemic… a pandemic that’s already claimed 6,000,000 lives… and supporting the evidence backed consensus position on vaccine safety and efficacy does not mean there’s an echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play. 

We know your type. You’re not the first to come here acting this way. You won’t be the last. You’re simply on the wrong side of this one, and every one else is tired of your tired obstinacy, your willful ignorance, your type of selfishness, and your misguided ideological bullshit and disingenuous presentations of evidence. 

Summarized: Right. Whatever. Cheerio. 

[Mark78L]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

...having no more patience for this sort of anti-vaccination foolishness

Sums up the closed-mindedness right there, making sweeping incorrect statements such as this. 

• I've had every vaccine under the sun (clearly not anti-vax)
• But apparently I'm the foolish one for questioning new vaccine technology that's still in its trial phase and has been rushed through in 11 months. And questioning the governments justification of removing informed consent and considering forced vaccination for healthcare workers, at least 70% of which have already been infected and acquired natural immunity, and therefore don't need the vaccine and will protect patients to a far better degree than those vaccinated and uninfected.

Based just on that premise alone it's clearly not foolish to be sceptical and ask important questions over efficacy and safety and regarding government action. What's the phrase? "Only fools rush in".... and here you are rushing in, making claims of efficacy and safety that are unsubstantiated and supporting draconian government dictates that aren't supported by the science.

And that's not even considering the following:

1. The re-classification of categorising Covid based on 'flu-like' symptoms, (hugely inflated figures)
2. Testing positive within 60 days (later 28 days) and listing all deaths 'WITH' covid as opposed to 'OF' covid (hugely inflated figures)
3. Using flawed PCR testing without presenting or referring to CT values and claiming all to be infectious when the vast majority aren't. (hugely inflating infection figures)
4. Ignoring natural immunity and even attempting to claim that vaccine immunity is better.
5. No transparency in the trial data and the presentation of Relative risk instead of Absolute risk reduction figures - which misled the public as to the efficacy of the vaccine
6. The implementation of lockdowns without evidence supporting their use - with the evidence now confirming they are useless.
7. The attempt to present zero covid as an option (impossible to achieve) at great cost to human lives
8. The implementation of Masks during the summer with the bulk of evidence showing a lack of effectiveness
9. Measures implemented without a cost/benefit analysis performed.

These are just a few of the major flaws and anti-scientific rhetoric that's been pushed by the 'consensus' in power that you seem to think shouldn't be questioned and we should blindly support.

To accept this nonsense without question and even promote it as the norm, indicates that either you've lost the ability to critically think, or your intention is to mislead because no self respecting intelligent person would consider any of this normal practice, because clearly it isn't.

But I'm sure even though I've put forward a reasonable and fair argument here, this message will still be down-voted because it challenges the agenda to support the mainstream narrative that this forum seems to have.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

We know your type. You’re not the first to come here acting this way. You won’t be the last. You’re simply on the wrong side of this one, and every one else is tired of your tired obstinacy, your willful ignorance, your type of selfishness, and your misguided ideological bullshit and disingenuous presentations of evidence. 

Have you finished throwing your tantrum? Blimey, "we know your type" (echo chamber), how self-righteous (egotistical), deluded (closed-minded) and petty can one person be to claim these things against someone making valid points?

...but oh no, like you said, there's no echo chamber, bruised egos, nor closed mindedness at play here... (oh dear)

Edited February 12, 2022 by Mark78L

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

claims of efficacy and safety that are unsubstantiated

They’ve been substantiated repeatedly, even right here in this very thread. Pretending otherwise and lashing out at me and my character doesn’t change that. 

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

I've had every vaccine under the sun (clearly not anti-vax)

Which is obviously why I also mentioned Ayn Rand style selfishness and caricatured libertarianism. You know, the part of the quote you stripped out. 

Your problem is with the politics of how this is being handled. That’s totally fine, but you’re also trying to bootstrap your opposition with false claims about efficacy and by misrepresenting the data and pretending it doesn’t exist, even when the posts your quoting clearly confirm otherwise with the links contained right there within.

It’s bad faith argumentation at best, or more simply just lying and spreading disinformation while accusing others of same like a good little Goebbels acolyte.

It’s a type of trolling that isn’t new, specifically sealioning like TheVat already said (and he was upvoted for recognizing it accurately and calling it out). 

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

These are just a few of the major flaws and anti-scientific rhetoric that's been pushed by the 'consensus' in power that you seem to think shouldn't be questioned and we should blindly support.

Strawman much?

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

Have you finished throwing your tantrum?

In case you care, your downvotes come from dumb shit like this, not your “questioning of the standard line.”

Let’s start fresh: Name what evidence we could share that would change your mind on this topic. You’ll likely ask for something that’s already been shared, but if it’s a new request it surely could be. 

Edited February 12, 2022 by iNow

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

healthcare workers, at least 70% of which have already been infected and acquired natural immunity,

The 'and' links 2 separate claims here.

Your evidence for these figures are  ??

I ask this because both of these claims are wildly different from the reviews at my UK district general hospital, which I get to see on a regular basis.

2 hours ago, Mark78L said:

Using flawed PCR testing without presenting or referring to CT values and claiming all to be infectious when the vast majority aren't. (hugely inflating infection figures)

Once again this conflicts with the evidence I review.

3 hours ago, Mark78L said:

Ignoring natural immunity and even attempting to claim that vaccine immunity is better.

Of course natural immunity is better. But if you are immune you are not (cannot be) infected, by definition.
But such individuals are very few and far between.
Exposure to the virus does not confer any guaranteed resistance to future exposure.
Nor are vaccines claimed to confer immunity, even by those (inept) politicians who don't know any better (some are actually practising doctors).
The claim and experience is simply that the clinical severity and acuteness of any infection or reinfection will be greatly reduced in most cases.
This again is borne out not only in local experience but also in the national figures published on most days.

 

Finally are you the ill informed member who believed the proposed compulsion covered the entire UK  as too many journalists seem to have done?

 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Of course natural immunity is better

Not entirely. It really depends on which variant is being considered. The vaccine seems to confer immunity to more variants and for longer than natural immunity in most cases. The very best possible immunity seems to come, however, from having both vaccine AND natural infection. 

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not entirely. It really depends on which variant is being considered. The vaccine seems to confer immunity to more variants and for longer than natural immunity in most cases. The very best possible immunity seems to come, however, from having both vaccine AND natural infection. 

You seem to have fallen into the same trap as your sparring partner.

If you are genuinely immune, there is no time limit.

You surely mean natural resistance, which is  different thing.

Genuine immunity may be thought of as a kind of limit as the natural resistance tends to infinity.

Both concepts are required to properly and fully discuss the subject.

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you are genuinely immune, there is no time limit.

You surely mean natural resistance, which is  different thing.

Indeed. Meant resistance and ability to minimize need for hospitalization, not immunity. Thx for calling that out ✌️