FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Today there is protests against covid restrictions.
Today there is protests against covid restrictions.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No shag Couldn’t care less how it’s going but hey it’s their right to protest so all power to them!!! T" You are right there too  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money..." more money? Less hols less sick pay for a shorter period.less pension .....woo hoo .as much sense as bo jo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. "This . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money...more money? Less hols less sick pay for a shorter period.less pension .....woo hoo .as much sense as bo jo." They've really not thought this through. Ffs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. "
There is a petition which is been reviewed on the 24th January 2022 to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Why should these people lose their jobs, that many of them have dedicated their lives to, just because the have made a decision not to have a vacinne, which doesn't even prevent you caughting the virus or passing it on.
We have a close relative who is a deputy manager in a care home and they have had case upon case in the care home despite all the residents and staff been fully vaccinated.
Some forget that these care workers and NHS staff worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic before the vaccines were available and no-one worried about them not been vaccinated then.
Personally find it disgusting the way they are been treated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money..." Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
There is a petition which is been reviewed on the 24th January 2022 to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Why should these people lose their jobs, that many of them have dedicated their lives to, just because the have made a decision not to have a vacinne, which doesn't even prevent you caughting the virus or passing it on.
We have a close relative who is a deputy manager in a care home and they have had case upon case in the care home despite all the residents and staff been fully vaccinated.
Some forget that these care workers and NHS staff worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic before the vaccines were available and no-one worried about them not been vaccinated then.
Personally find it disgusting the way they are been treated."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money..." So they are happy to be vaccinated then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can see that in regents park, there are protests against the vaccine mandate that will see thousands of nhs staff dismissed from their jobs." If the unvaccinated NHS staff were such a danger to public health they would've been told not to work immediately. The fact is they are not a danger to public health and the NHS needed them to get through the winter. Will have to wait and see if the government follow through on the dismissals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It must be noted that all those that work in hospitals eg. doctors/nurses/etc ALL get tested as soon as they walk through the door regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. Isn’t that safe enough? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. " including insulate britain and extinction rebellion etc etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It must be noted that all those that work in hospitals eg. doctors/nurses/etc ALL get tested as soon as they walk through the door regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. Isn’t that safe enough? " It appears tests are only accurate when done on vaccinated people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It must be noted that all those that work in hospitals eg. doctors/nurses/etc ALL get tested as soon as they walk through the door regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. Isn’t that safe enough? " Is that before every shift and by an independent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
There is a petition which is been reviewed on the 24th January 2022 to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Why should these people lose their jobs, that many of them have dedicated their lives to, just because the have made a decision not to have a vacinne, which doesn't even prevent you caughting the virus or passing it on.
We have a close relative who is a deputy manager in a care home and they have had case upon case in the care home despite all the residents and staff been fully vaccinated.
Some forget that these care workers and NHS staff worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic before the vaccines were available and no-one worried about them not been vaccinated then.
Personally find it disgusting the way they are been treated."Thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. " I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body." Do you need to take a test before work as per a previous post? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money...more money? Less hols less sick pay for a shorter period.less pension .....woo hoo .as much sense as bo jo." So true agencies will skim of their lion's share and SSP is only £96 per werk. Being on the dole is almost double that. So imagine self isolating/recovering for two weeks at home. Health or wealth? Being an agency worker does not pay. No mortgage company will touch you with a barge pole.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body. Do you need to take a test before work as per a previous post? " what about the three Hep jabs... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... If the unvaccinated NHS staff were such a danger to public health they would've been told not to work immediately. The fact is they are not a danger to public health and the NHS needed them to get through the winter. Will have to wait and see if the government follow through on the dismissals." I can see the government getting itself dismissed over this. They are treading a dangerous path. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then?" Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. " The other side of the coin is that they are standing up for stupidity and, ironically, showing no care to their vulnerable patients despite working in the 'care' industry. The vaccines are safe and the death toll is no longer 1800 a day as it was this time a year ago. Graveyards across the world now contain deceased people, who in their final last gasps were pleading for the vaccines and wishing they could turn the clocks back. It is not unusual now to read about 'anti-vaxxers' urging others to get jabbed. I know someone whose heart reportedly stopped numerous times while brave Warrington Hospital doctors battled to save her life. Long COVID is debilitating, so I genuinely struggle understanding why people won't get vaccinated. So many reports now of people young and fit but bed-bound for months with covid. A colleague of mine was super active and had no health concerns, but now suffers with asthma which he didn't have before and a number of allergies. He also tells me he suffers from fatigue, breathlessness, headaches, cognitive problems, and mental health problems. He's 37. He hurriedly made a will before being transferred to ICU. He tells everybody he can to get the vaccine: don't put yourself and others at risk. Getting a vaccination seems a much safer and more dependable way to build immunity to COVID-19 than waiting to get sick with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body. Do you need to take a test before work as per a previous post? what about the three Hep jabs..." My first job was as a lab technician for the NHS I HAD to have hep jabs plus another couple as part of my contract of employment, I kinda don't really see the problem in mandatory jabs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. including insulate britain and extinction rebellion etc etc?" Whether you or I agree with a protest, its a corner stone of a democratic society, so be glad we live in a society where we can protest! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body." There are other mandatory jabs you need to have when you work in the NHS, did you have them ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body." From the Department of Health Green book: "Any vaccine-preventable disease that is transmissible from person to person poses a risk to both healthcare professionals and their patients. Healthcare workers have a duty of care towards their patients which includes taking reasonable precautions to protect them from communicable diseases. Immunisation of healthcare and laboratory workers may therefore: - protect the individual and their family from an occupationally-acquired infection - protect patients and service users, including vulnerable patients who may not respond well to their own immunisation - protect other healthcare and laboratory staff - allow for the efficient running of services without disruption." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body. There are other mandatory jabs you need to have when you work in the NHS, did you have them ?" Staff involved with care have the following jabs: Tetanus, diphtheria, polio, MMR, BCG, Hep B, Flu, Varicella. Staff who handle organs have the following jabs: Tepatitis A, Japanese encephalitis, cholera, meningococcal ACW135Y, smallpox, tick-borne encephalitis,typhoid, yellow fever, influenza, varicella. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. " It might make sense if this vaccine was like other vaccines, you know, those that stop you completely catching a virus therefore being unable to spread it? Therefore you can’t die from what you can’t contract. But let’s make it mandatory when it only provides ‘some’ level of protection and in line with the bodies immune-response? It’s like having a contraceptive injection but then still having to wear condoms and still being able to get pregnant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. It might make sense if this vaccine was like other vaccines, you know, those that stop you completely catching a virus therefore being unable to spread it? Therefore you can’t die from what you can’t contract. But let’s make it mandatory when it only provides ‘some’ level of protection and in line with the bodies immune-response? It’s like having a contraceptive injection but then still having to wear condoms and still being able to get pregnant. " Very few vaccines provide sterilising immunity. The flu jab can be 40% effective in some years but we still use it as it still provides protection. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Staff involved with care have the following jabs: Tetanus, diphtheria, polio, MMR, BCG, Hep B, Flu, Varicella. Staff who handle organs have the following jabs: Tepatitis A, Japanese encephalitis, cholera, meningococcal ACW135Y, smallpox, tick-borne encephalitis,typhoid, yellow fever, influenza, varicella." 1000% this. Had to show my BCG scar to a occy health nurse. Had three Hep B jabs and titre to check I'd seroconverted. This is nowt new. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going by anecdotes but the staff that are unvaccinated are mainly cleaners, receptionists, porters, etc. The only concerning group are midwives." And you can bet your last penny some Tory MP has just set up a cleaning/support staff agency ... whats the mantra ... 'follow the money' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going by anecdotes but the staff that are unvaccinated are mainly cleaners, receptionists, porters, etc. The only concerning group are midwives. And you can bet your last penny some Tory MP has just set up a cleaning/support staff agency ... whats the mantra ... 'follow the money'" Who is being mandated to be vaccinated within the NHS, is it everybody or groups such as nurses and doctors? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Very few vaccines provide sterilising immunity. The flu jab can be 40% effective in some years but we still use it as it still provides protection. " Also this. It's annoying when you're in the 60% off work for 2 weeks with flu but it's a numbers game at population level. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going by anecdotes but the staff that are unvaccinated are mainly cleaners, receptionists, porters, etc. The only concerning group are midwives. And you can bet your last penny some Tory MP has just set up a cleaning/support staff agency ... whats the mantra ... 'follow the money' Who is being mandated to be vaccinated within the NHS, is it everybody or groups such as nurses and doctors? " looks like everyone 'These regulations will apply equally across the public (NHS) and independent health sector, and will require workers aged 18 and over, who have direct, face to face contact with service users to provide evidence that they have received a complete course of a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved COVID-19 vaccine, subject to limited exceptions, by no later than 1 April 2022. This will include front-line workers, as well as non-clinical workers not directly involved in patient care but who nevertheless may have direct, face to-face contact with patients, such as receptionists, ward clerks, porters and cleaners.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going by anecdotes but the staff that are unvaccinated are mainly cleaners, receptionists, porters, etc. The only concerning group are midwives. And you can bet your last penny some Tory MP has just set up a cleaning/support staff agency ... whats the mantra ... 'follow the money' Who is being mandated to be vaccinated within the NHS, is it everybody or groups such as nurses and doctors? looks like everyone 'These regulations will apply equally across the public (NHS) and independent health sector, and will require workers aged 18 and over, who have direct, face to face contact with service users to provide evidence that they have received a complete course of a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved COVID-19 vaccine, subject to limited exceptions, by no later than 1 April 2022. This will include front-line workers, as well as non-clinical workers not directly involved in patient care but who nevertheless may have direct, face to-face contact with patients, such as receptionists, ward clerks, porters and cleaners.'" Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. The other side of the coin is that they are standing up for stupidity and, ironically, showing no care to their vulnerable patients despite working in the 'care' industry. The vaccines are safe and the death toll is no longer 1800 a day as it was this time a year ago. Graveyards across the world now contain deceased people, who in their final last gasps were pleading for the vaccines and wishing they could turn the clocks back. It is not unusual now to read about 'anti-vaxxers' urging others to get jabbed. I know someone whose heart reportedly stopped numerous times while brave Warrington Hospital doctors battled to save her life. Long COVID is debilitating, so I genuinely struggle understanding why people won't get vaccinated. So many reports now of people young and fit but bed-bound for months with covid. A colleague of mine was super active and had no health concerns, but now suffers with asthma which he didn't have before and a number of allergies. He also tells me he suffers from fatigue, breathlessness, headaches, cognitive problems, and mental health problems. He's 37. He hurriedly made a will before being transferred to ICU. He tells everybody he can to get the vaccine: don't put yourself and others at risk. Getting a vaccination seems a much safer and more dependable way to build immunity to COVID-19 than waiting to get sick with it. " Long covid varies from person to person so because your friend has certain issues doesn't mean anyone else will get those and I know from experience by my friends plus, not everyone will suffer from long covid You're amongst the scaremongering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going by anecdotes but the staff that are unvaccinated are mainly cleaners, receptionists, porters, etc. The only concerning group are midwives. And you can bet your last penny some Tory MP has just set up a cleaning/support staff agency ... whats the mantra ... 'follow the money' Who is being mandated to be vaccinated within the NHS, is it everybody or groups such as nurses and doctors? looks like everyone 'These regulations will apply equally across the public (NHS) and independent health sector, and will require workers aged 18 and over, who have direct, face to face contact with service users to provide evidence that they have received a complete course of a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved COVID-19 vaccine, subject to limited exceptions, by no later than 1 April 2022. This will include front-line workers, as well as non-clinical workers not directly involved in patient care but who nevertheless may have direct, face to-face contact with patients, such as receptionists, ward clerks, porters and cleaners.' Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff?" Thats a pandoras box that doesnt need opening, yet still a fair question ... id imagine the counter to that is that the 'public' rarely come into contact with a significant number of vulnerable/high risk patients. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff?" Should cars have brakes or should pedestrians be responsible for protecting themselves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff? Should cars have brakes or should pedestrians be responsible for protecting themselves?" Both, which is my point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff? Should cars have brakes or should pedestrians be responsible for protecting themselves?" Both surely, isn't that why we teach kids how to cross roads? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. The other side of the coin is that they are standing up for stupidity and, ironically, showing no care to their vulnerable patients despite working in the 'care' industry. The vaccines are safe and the death toll is no longer 1800 a day as it was this time a year ago. Graveyards across the world now contain deceased people, who in their final last gasps were pleading for the vaccines and wishing they could turn the clocks back. It is not unusual now to read about 'anti-vaxxers' urging others to get jabbed. I know someone whose heart reportedly stopped numerous times while brave Warrington Hospital doctors battled to save her life. Long COVID is debilitating, so I genuinely struggle understanding why people won't get vaccinated. So many reports now of people young and fit but bed-bound for months with covid. A colleague of mine was super active and had no health concerns, but now suffers with asthma which he didn't have before and a number of allergies. He also tells me he suffers from fatigue, breathlessness, headaches, cognitive problems, and mental health problems. He's 37. He hurriedly made a will before being transferred to ICU. He tells everybody he can to get the vaccine: don't put yourself and others at risk. Getting a vaccination seems a much safer and more dependable way to build immunity to COVID-19 than waiting to get sick with it. Long covid varies from person to person so because your friend has certain issues doesn't mean anyone else will get those and I know from experience by my friends plus, not everyone will suffer from long covid You're amongst the scaremongering. " 100% long covid varies from person to person. Therefore just because my colleague has certain issues doesn't mean anyone else will get just those - in fact they may get considerably worse and /or for longer. Or die. Or may be asymptomatic. Why roll the dice? I'm not amongst the scaremongering. I'm amongst the realists. A quick Internet search will take you to lots of reports of sufferers, like my colleague or deceased people. I'll roll with the vaccines, others can roll the dice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff? Thats a pandoras box that doesnt need opening, yet still a fair question ... id imagine the counter to that is that the 'public' rarely come into contact with a significant number of vulnerable/high risk patients." The public come into as many transactions with people as a cleaner in the NHS. The difference may occur with a nurse or doctor who need to get closer to a person. If both the medical staff and patients are vaccinated is that not a better safety blanket? If the public were mandated to be vaccinated, would public opinion change towards the NHS mandate? Walking others shoes can change a landscape. I'm not showing a bias, I do not have one right now but I'm very curious in how this will play out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally against mandatory vaccination, however, governments all over the early are getting around this by the back door approach. By introducing mandatory covid passports with an expiry date means everyone will eventually have to have boosters and continue with a pointless booster program " Pointless? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
There is a petition which is been reviewed on the 24th January 2022 to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Why should these people lose their jobs, that many of them have dedicated their lives to, just because the have made a decision not to have a vacinne, which doesn't even prevent you caughting the virus or passing it on.
We have a close relative who is a deputy manager in a care home and they have had case upon case in the care home despite all the residents and staff been fully vaccinated.
Some forget that these care workers and NHS staff worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic before the vaccines were available and no-one worried about them not been vaccinated then.
Personally find it disgusting the way they are been treated."That is right and also with the latest covid figures comming out from the freedom of info request. I cant see the science is strong enough to supporting the vaccine mandates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
There is a petition which is been reviewed on the 24th January 2022 to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Why should these people lose their jobs, that many of them have dedicated their lives to, just because the have made a decision not to have a vacinne, which doesn't even prevent you caughting the virus or passing it on.
We have a close relative who is a deputy manager in a care home and they have had case upon case in the care home despite all the residents and staff been fully vaccinated.
Some forget that these care workers and NHS staff worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic before the vaccines were available and no-one worried about them not been vaccinated then.
Personally find it disgusting the way they are been treated.That is right and also with the latest covid figures comming out from the freedom of info request. I cant see the science is strong enough to supporting the vaccine mandates."Support* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff? Thats a pandoras box that doesnt need opening, yet still a fair question ... id imagine the counter to that is that the 'public' rarely come into contact with a significant number of vulnerable/high risk patients. The public come into as many transactions with people as a cleaner in the NHS. The difference may occur with a nurse or doctor who need to get closer to a person. If both the medical staff and patients are vaccinated is that not a better safety blanket? If the public were mandated to be vaccinated, would public opinion change towards the NHS mandate? Walking others shoes can change a landscape. I'm not showing a bias, I do not have one right now but I'm very curious in how this will play out " Well said! Mandate c-19 jab for the whole country and all the boosters too. High risk and vulnerable patients don't wear labels and many go about their daily lives shopping, catching public transport, going out for meals etc. In all these places they are at risk of exposure to covid, not just at healthcare settings. I wonder how long it will be before covid vaccination is forced in other sectors such as the police or teaching. I believe in vaccinations and the good they have done in fighting against disease. I do not agree with this covid vaccine mandate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money..." So, they'll do it for money, instead of finding a job they don't need being vaccined for. I wonder how many of them have their Hep B jabs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money..." They may well go work for agencies but they will work harder than they’ve ever worked before. I had a friend who did that, she was originally a pharmacy tech in a hospital but wanted to retrain as a nurse, so left her job, did the agency thing, she was actually working double shifts in between her uni work - thank fully she graduated first time and so gave up the agency but said if he had to do it all again, she wouldn’t. This was years ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
There is a petition which is been reviewed on the 24th January 2022 to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Why should these people lose their jobs, that many of them have dedicated their lives to, just because the have made a decision not to have a vacinne, which doesn't even prevent you caughting the virus or passing it on.
We have a close relative who is a deputy manager in a care home and they have had case upon case in the care home despite all the residents and staff been fully vaccinated.
Some forget that these care workers and NHS staff worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic before the vaccines were available and no-one worried about them not been vaccinated then.
Personally find it disgusting the way they are been treated.That is right and also with the latest covid figures comming out from the freedom of info request. I cant see the science is strong enough to supporting the vaccine mandates."How do you know that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it" The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
There is a petition which is been reviewed on the 24th January 2022 to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Why should these people lose their jobs, that many of them have dedicated their lives to, just because the have made a decision not to have a vacinne, which doesn't even prevent you caughting the virus or passing it on.
We have a close relative who is a deputy manager in a care home and they have had case upon case in the care home despite all the residents and staff been fully vaccinated.
Some forget that these care workers and NHS staff worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic before the vaccines were available and no-one worried about them not been vaccinated then.
Personally find it disgusting the way they are been treated.That is right and also with the latest covid figures comming out from the freedom of info request. I cant see the science is strong enough to supporting the vaccine mandates."Are they the ONS figures that show only 17,000 people died OF covid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston" Like the BLM and LGBT protests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point..." I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money...more money? Less hols less sick pay for a shorter period.less pension .....woo hoo .as much sense as bo jo." Pensions will be obliterated soon enough | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests." no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine" So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap." I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses " Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise" There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health." You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law." From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong " and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way?" Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? " indeed it is the 'daft' protest against being dismissed for being 'daft' losing your job for refusing to take a safe vacccination, 9.85 billion doses given worldwide to date, that 90% of your colleagues have taken, your professional bodies encourage and recommend and it also being law. How would you describe that rationale? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Playing devils advocate for a second.. If the staff are being mandated to be vaccinated to protect the public, should the public be mandated to be vaccinated to protect the staff? Thats a pandoras box that doesnt need opening, yet still a fair question ... id imagine the counter to that is that the 'public' rarely come into contact with a significant number of vulnerable/high risk patients. The public come into as many transactions with people as a cleaner in the NHS. The difference may occur with a nurse or doctor who need to get closer to a person. If both the medical staff and patients are vaccinated is that not a better safety blanket? If the public were mandated to be vaccinated, would public opinion change towards the NHS mandate? Walking others shoes can change a landscape. I'm not showing a bias, I do not have one right now but I'm very curious in how this will play out Well said! Mandate c-19 jab for the whole country and all the boosters too. High risk and vulnerable patients don't wear labels and many go about their daily lives shopping, catching public transport, going out for meals etc. In all these places they are at risk of exposure to covid, not just at healthcare settings. I wonder how long it will be before covid vaccination is forced in other sectors such as the police or teaching. I believe in vaccinations and the good they have done in fighting against disease. I do not agree with this covid vaccine mandate. " A rounded view, not closed down to one argument | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? indeed it is the 'daft' protest against being dismissed for being 'daft' losing your job for refusing to take a safe vacccination, 9.85 billion doses given worldwide to date, that 90% of your colleagues have taken, your professional bodies encourage and recommend and it also being law. How would you describe that rationale? " They are healthcare professionals and they don’t want to take the vaccine.. I’ve a feeling they are a hell of a lot more qualified to make that choice than most. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? indeed it is the 'daft' protest against being dismissed for being 'daft' losing your job for refusing to take a safe vacccination, 9.85 billion doses given worldwide to date, that 90% of your colleagues have taken, your professional bodies encourage and recommend and it also being law. How would you describe that rationale? They are healthcare professionals and they don’t want to take the vaccine.. I’ve a feeling they are a hell of a lot more qualified to make that choice than most. " You are aware that the mandate also covers cleaners, receptionists, porters and other non clinical staff who are likley to be no more medically educated than you or me? But even if they were all 'medical professionals' what makes you think then that they know better than 90% of their fellow colleagues and all the professional bodies? By your logic then 90% are wrong in having the vaccine and the medical bodies dont know what they are talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They are healthcare professionals and they don’t want to take the vaccine.. I’ve a feeling they are a hell of a lot more qualified to make that choice than most. You are aware that the mandate also covers cleaners, receptionists, porters and other non clinical staff who are likley to be no more medically educated than you or me? But even if they were all 'medical professionals' what makes you think then that they know better than 90% of their fellow colleagues and all the professional bodies? By your logic then 90% are wrong in having the vaccine and the medical bodies dont know what they are talking about." 10% of people may have doubts, let them have their doubts, no amount of explaining will change those doubts it will only enforce them. Dive off a cliff, parachute from a plane, hold a spider, sit in a dark room, don't step on the cracks in the pavement are all rational fears to those who are unfortunate enough to have a fear of what the majority believe is normal, but it is no less frightening to individuals who cant see that logic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money...more money? Less hols less sick pay for a shorter period.less pension .....woo hoo .as much sense as bo jo." ...but they will still get vaccinated. Not so principled then. Not based on a genuine medical concern. Not that I have any objection to them being paid more, but and interesting outcome if this is true. Not that I really believe this. Less than 10% of NHS staff are unvaccinated and A&E and even smaller percentage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? " They can protest. 10% unvaccinated. 90% vaccinated. What does that imply? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? indeed it is the 'daft' protest against being dismissed for being 'daft' losing your job for refusing to take a safe vacccination, 9.85 billion doses given worldwide to date, that 90% of your colleagues have taken, your professional bodies encourage and recommend and it also being law. How would you describe that rationale? They are healthcare professionals and they don’t want to take the vaccine.. I’ve a feeling they are a hell of a lot more qualified to make that choice than most. You are aware that the mandate also covers cleaners, receptionists, porters and other non clinical staff who are likley to be no more medically educated than you or me? But even if they were all 'medical professionals' what makes you think then that they know better than 90% of their fellow colleagues and all the professional bodies? By your logic then 90% are wrong in having the vaccine and the medical bodies dont know what they are talking about." Sorry not taking the bait. Find a medical professional to rise to your insulting post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? indeed it is the 'daft' protest against being dismissed for being 'daft' losing your job for refusing to take a safe vacccination, 9.85 billion doses given worldwide to date, that 90% of your colleagues have taken, your professional bodies encourage and recommend and it also being law. How would you describe that rationale? " Tell her child it’s safe https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796#:~:text=A%20radio%20presenter%20died%20due,first%20dose%20of%20the%20vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? indeed it is the 'daft' protest against being dismissed for being 'daft' losing your job for refusing to take a safe vacccination, 9.85 billion doses given worldwide to date, that 90% of your colleagues have taken, your professional bodies encourage and recommend and it also being law. How would you describe that rationale? Tell her child it’s safe https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796#:~:text=A%20radio%20presenter%20died%20due,first%20dose%20of%20the%20vaccine." Whatever you do, don't get in a car or cross the road. Don't eat. People have died doing these things. They are not safe!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise There's nothing daft about protesting about losing your job because you've worked all the way through through Covid but are now considered a threat to public health. You said the BLM and LGBT protests were daft. Why? As for the other protest, you probably are daft if you throw away your career against advice from your professional bodies never mind it been law. From being clapped by the nation to being called daft by someone on a swinger site Where did it all go wrong and you think it is sensible to lose your career this way? Isn’t that the point of the ‘daft’ protest ? indeed it is the 'daft' protest against being dismissed for being 'daft' losing your job for refusing to take a safe vacccination, 9.85 billion doses given worldwide to date, that 90% of your colleagues have taken, your professional bodies encourage and recommend and it also being law. How would you describe that rationale? Tell her child it’s safe https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796#:~:text=A%20radio%20presenter%20died%20due,first%20dose%20of%20the%20vaccine. Whatever you do, don't get in a car or cross the road. Don't eat. People have died doing these things. They are not safe!!!!" Wow. Fucking wow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other." Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? They can protest. 10% unvaccinated. 90% vaccinated. What does that imply?" It implies that 10% made a decision not to get vaccinated and 90% made a decision to get vaccinated. Am I missing something? What do you read into read into the figures? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. " Isis blow themselves up for their beliefs... not all beliefs are rooted in any rationality! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It must be noted that all those that work in hospitals eg. doctors/nurses/etc ALL get tested as soon as they walk through the door regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. Isn’t that safe enough? " What's your source for this? From my experience, we're advised to do lateral flow tests twice a week, but that's it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests." I think you missed my point. By some considerable distance...... Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. Isis blow themselves up for their beliefs... not all beliefs are rooted in any rationality!"
Surgeons perform double mastectomies on perfectly healthy young women because of their beliefs. Not all beliefs are rooted in any rationality! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. I think you missed my point. By some considerable distance...... Winston" I wasn't expecting you to think otherwise. You've missed my point by some considerable distance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money...more money? Less hols less sick pay for a shorter period.less pension .....woo hoo .as much sense as bo jo. They've really not thought this through. Ffs. " It's the same with houses and cars right now .... apparently, house and car prices are at an all time high, the amount of people selling up to get the high price is amazing, shame they have not thought they have to pay the current inflated prices to replace what they have sold. Better the devil you know in the case of NHS workers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise" I think the point may have been made to point out the bullshit hypocritical information implanted into the minds of the people. The scientists said it was perfectly fine for BLM protests and ER Extinction rebellion because racism is pandemic etc but these protesting for lifting of restriction and wanting a choice where Theres a risk well those people are super spreaders. Complete utter bullshit.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Covid vaccine mandate for NHS staff could be ‘paused’ by Government over fears 70,000 workers would be sacked" https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/covid-vaccine-mandate-nhs-staff-paused-government-workers-sacked-1416578/amp" Yes. I think that they would bend the rules after a while if they go ahead of it as they will realise that nhs will be stretched even more than it is now too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a really sad reflection of the state of our country. Many people who work so hard to look after others have gone from being applauded to potentially being sacked needlessly. For what to prove some political point. I'm absolutely disgusted by the whole thing. Our NHS staff and social care workforce deserve far better than this and don't even get me started on the pay, the hours or the costs they incur just to park at some hospitals. Now more than ever we need them. Its in crisis and yet some think its OK to force them out of work. " Yes, it is sad too and lets hope that there will be some kind of justice for them that they will not go through with the mandates | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. I think you missed my point. By some considerable distance...... Winston I wasn't expecting you to think otherwise. You've missed my point by some considerable distance." I think not. It would help to read and understand the post I commented on. That would perhaps help understand my comment. Your comment about BLM and LGBT protests isn't relevant to a discussion about Covid. Not in any way. You made the BLM and LGBT protests comment because you missed my comment about "daft protests" In simple terms..... Allegedly thousands of NHS staff being sacked because they're refusing the covid vaccine. Despite vaccines against many other maladies already being a condition of employment. This seems like a daft protest. To protest against something thats already a condition of employment seems strange. It also flies in the face of the RCN recommendations. Add in, they're allegedly losing their jobs because they won't get vaccinated, but happy to be vaccinated to do the same or similar work through an agency. Again, seems like a daft protest to me. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have had 3 vaccines because I was told it was mandatory and that I could be sacked if I didn’t. I’m all for people being able to choose... But... If you’re going to ban unvaccinated members of staff from hospitals then maybe unvaccinated members of the public should be banned too. Frontline NHS staff are not only knackered, but pissed off with being treated as a disposable resource. Doctors and nurses were cannon fodder for 9 months before vaccines came out. Now we are told that we must redouble our efforts to reduce a backlog not of our making. " Well said!!!! There would be uproar if nhs staff said they weren't willing to treat any unvaxxed patients. Part of the job is treating everyone fairly. At this stage where majority of nhs staff are vaccinated against c-19 (having worked much of the pandemic without it), next week restrictions are being de-escalated, why force the issue now? No job no job seems very heavy handed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? They can protest. 10% unvaccinated. 90% vaccinated. What does that imply? It implies that 10% made a decision not to get vaccinated and 90% made a decision to get vaccinated. Am I missing something? What do you read into read into the figures? " You are missing something. It is a minority of staff not willing to be vaccinated. So any discussion about listening to medical professionals skews substantially towards vaccination. Specifically from the specialists in the field. Various vaccinations are mandatory for for various roles in the NHS. 100% of those working those roles must be vaccinated otherwise they cannot do those jobs. Natural immunity provides inconsistent levels of protection and there remains the basic problem of having to contract the disease first. Regardless, what happens when immunity wanes? Perhaps there should be a requirement for a termination payment as it is a change in contractual terms? That seems fair. However, please stop providing false justifications for vaccine safety. If you don't want to be that's fine but do not pretend there really is evidence to support your position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... So they are happy to be vaccinated then? Some people don't realise how daft their "protest" is. Winston Like the BLM and LGBT protests. no need to bring race, sexual orientation or sexual identity into this debate. Nothing daft about the discrimination, exploitation and hate those people have suffered for centuries. Clearly you think otherwise I think the point may have been made to point out the bullshit hypocritical information implanted into the minds of the people. The scientists said it was perfectly fine for BLM protests and ER Extinction rebellion because racism is pandemic etc but these protesting for lifting of restriction and wanting a choice where Theres a risk well those people are super spreaders. Complete utter bullshit. "No, "the scientists" did not say that it was "perfectly fine" for BLM and Extinction Rebellion protests. Nobody said those not wanting to be vaccinated should not protest. You just made that up. Strange way to support your point, whatever that may be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.”" So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine" The risk of serious illness to people already I'll in hospital has not lowered to the same extent. Staff vaccination is not for the benefit of staff. It is for the benefit of patients to minimise hospital acquired infection. How do they "choose"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It must be noted that all those that work in hospitals eg. doctors/nurses/etc ALL get tested as soon as they walk through the door regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. Isn’t that safe enough? It appears tests are only accurate when done on vaccinated people." Well that's totally untrue, where did you get this notion ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? They can protest. 10% unvaccinated. 90% vaccinated. What does that imply? It implies that 10% made a decision not to get vaccinated and 90% made a decision to get vaccinated. Am I missing something? What do you read into read into the figures? You are missing something. It is a minority of staff not willing to be vaccinated. So any discussion about listening to medical professionals skews substantially towards vaccination. Specifically from the specialists in the field. Various vaccinations are mandatory for for various roles in the NHS. 100% of those working those roles must be vaccinated otherwise they cannot do those jobs. Natural immunity provides inconsistent levels of protection and there remains the basic problem of having to contract the disease first. Regardless, what happens when immunity wanes? Perhaps there should be a requirement for a termination payment as it is a change in contractual terms? That seems fair. However, please stop providing false justifications for vaccine safety. If you don't want to be that's fine but do not pretend there really is evidence to support your position." Now replace 'natural' with 'vaccine'... 'Vaccine' immunity provides inconsistent levels of protection and there remains the basic problem of having to contract the disease first. Regardless, what happens when immunity wanes? Oh... exactly the same applies! The immunity provided by COVID vaccines are so inconsistent not even your so-called experts can predict the efficacy. There would be no requirement for a termination payment if they let them continue to work as they have been doing for the past 22 months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It must be noted that all those that work in hospitals eg. doctors/nurses/etc ALL get tested as soon as they walk through the door regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. Isn’t that safe enough? It appears tests are only accurate when done on vaccinated people. Well that's totally untrue, where did you get this notion ?" I forgot to include the tongue in cheek emoji. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? They can protest. 10% unvaccinated. 90% vaccinated. What does that imply? It implies that 10% made a decision not to get vaccinated and 90% made a decision to get vaccinated. Am I missing something? What do you read into read into the figures? You are missing something. It is a minority of staff not willing to be vaccinated. So any discussion about listening to medical professionals skews substantially towards vaccination. Specifically from the specialists in the field. Various vaccinations are mandatory for for various roles in the NHS. 100% of those working those roles must be vaccinated otherwise they cannot do those jobs. Natural immunity provides inconsistent levels of protection and there remains the basic problem of having to contract the disease first. Regardless, what happens when immunity wanes? Perhaps there should be a requirement for a termination payment as it is a change in contractual terms? That seems fair. However, please stop providing false justifications for vaccine safety. If you don't want to be that's fine but do not pretend there really is evidence to support your position. Now replace 'natural' with 'vaccine'... 'Vaccine' immunity provides inconsistent levels of protection and there remains the basic problem of having to contract the disease first. Regardless, what happens when immunity wanes? Oh... exactly the same applies! The immunity provided by COVID vaccines are so inconsistent not even your so-called experts can predict the efficacy. There would be no requirement for a termination payment if they let them continue to work as they have been doing for the past 22 months." No. This is a relative comparison. The vaccine response is far more consistent. They are not "so-called" experts. They are actual experts with knowledge, experience and access to extensive data. you are in posession of none of these things. None. There has not been a vaccine for 22 months. Since then there has been a concerted effort to convince all staff to get vaccinated. then there was fair period of warning given. Now it's required. I do not, actully, think that it has been well thought through as despite the clinical sense there are practical consequences if clinical staff numbers fall which have not been addressed. Hopefully, this whole Covid thing will make sense to you eventually, but I guess not yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". " Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse!" It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be? 
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body." Is the vaccine a suppository now?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face."I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right? You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you? 
Said it before...imperious! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face.
I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right?
You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you?
Said it before...imperious!"I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable. Your interpretation of what is written by seems somewhat coloured by assumption. However, you claim to be immune to that and also able to interpret complex information than those who do it for a living. That's not me, that's the people whose job it is. You can continue to do that and I can continue to challenge you on your determination to endlessly bring their work into question. I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body. Is the vaccine a suppository now? "Now there's a thought, I wonder if vaccine take-up would have been greater had it been offered as a banana size & shape suppository? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face.
I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right?
You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you?
Said it before...imperious!
I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.
Your interpretation of what is written by seems somewhat coloured by assumption. However, you claim to be immune to that and also able to interpret complex information than those who do it for a living. That's not me, that's the people whose job it is.
You can continue to do that and I can continue to challenge you on your determination to endlessly bring their work into question.
I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned."There’s that irony again! “I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.” Except you have... “No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make...” So we have established you agree with my opening point. What else needed to be said? What value did that bring beyond trying to once again stir it up and discredit something someone has said because you deem it undermining to your accepted narrative? “I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.” What exactly in my opening post needed to be questioned? On the contrary, I like to have balanced conversations and ensure all viewpoints are respected (note I am never dismissive of what you say to others yet you feel the self appointed need to jump in all the time and try to invalidate what is being said (even when you agree with it). Again curious! You also said... “...pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty.” So by your rationale you need to stop raising historical successes of vaccines and changes to process as a justification for why the Covid vaccines are all so good/safe and drawing false certainty! Or is it that you are only allowed to draw a parallel when it supports your acceptable narrative? It is all quite simple (in terms of this latest bout of posts between us). I said medical authorities are not infallible (and provided a relatively recent example that is contextual - you can be damn sure if I had used a non-vaccine example you would have been all over that too) and you have actually agreed with what I said. Nothing more was required. Glad it has taken so many words to establish that you agree with me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face.
I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right?
You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you?
Said it before...imperious!
I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.
Your interpretation of what is written by seems somewhat coloured by assumption. However, you claim to be immune to that and also able to interpret complex information than those who do it for a living. That's not me, that's the people whose job it is.
You can continue to do that and I can continue to challenge you on your determination to endlessly bring their work into question.
I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned."But you do say what is and is not acceptable for people to post on this forum. You did exactly that in a thread where I corrected you about Canadian law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? " I am glad the press are starting to cover these marches now, as they ignored them in the past. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? I am glad the press are starting to cover these marches now, as they ignored them in the past. " Yes. I think the same, they cant hide it as much anymore as they could before as so many other are reporting on it, so they have to do it too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? I am glad the press are starting to cover these marches now, as they ignored them in the past. Yes. I think the same, they cant hide it as much anymore as they could before as so many other are reporting on it, so they have to do it too "People can now see how many are against this kind of mandate, and how the press tried for so long to ignore them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I protest everytime, absolutley love it,so empowering. They can shove vaccines up they're arse, I'm in nhs and I won't be made to have anything put in my body." Do the vaccines work as a suppository? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? " “Protests” have been ruined as a form of action, as most times it’s just the same bunch of problem looking for trouble. Waste of time and valuable resources. As for protesting against covid restrictions, I disagree with the cause. Most governments have shown that they will relax restrictions as fast as is safe to do so, and we are seeing significant changes in a short space of time. Only a month ago, things looked a lot worse. Some people just love a moan though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? I am glad the press are starting to cover these marches now, as they ignored them in the past. Yes. I think the same, they cant hide it as much anymore as they could before as so many other are reporting on it, so they have to do it too
People can now see how many are against this kind of mandate, and how the press tried for so long to ignore them."Yes and it is good that so many can see that they are against the mandates too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face.
I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right?
You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you?
Said it before...imperious!
I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.
Your interpretation of what is written by seems somewhat coloured by assumption. However, you claim to be immune to that and also able to interpret complex information than those who do it for a living. That's not me, that's the people whose job it is.
You can continue to do that and I can continue to challenge you on your determination to endlessly bring their work into question.
I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.
There’s that irony again!
“I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.”
Except you have...
“No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make...”
So we have established you agree with my opening point. What else needed to be said? What value did that bring beyond trying to once again stir it up and discredit something someone has said because you deem it undermining to your accepted narrative?
“I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.”
What exactly in my opening post needed to be questioned?
On the contrary, I like to have balanced conversations and ensure all viewpoints are respected (note I am never dismissive of what you say to others yet you feel the self appointed need to jump in all the time and try to invalidate what is being said (even when you agree with it). Again curious!
You also said...
“...pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty.”
So by your rationale you need to stop raising historical successes of vaccines and changes to process as a justification for why the Covid vaccines are all so good/safe and drawing false certainty! Or is it that you are only allowed to draw a parallel when it supports your acceptable narrative?
It is all quite simple (in terms of this latest bout of posts between us). I said medical authorities are not infallible (and provided a relatively recent example that is contextual - you can be damn sure if I had used a non-vaccine example you would have been all over that too) and you have actually agreed with what I said. Nothing more was required.
Glad it has taken so many words to establish that you agree with me. "There it is again. The need to "win" and to personalise. I did not say disagree did I? If it is necessary for your ego I am happy to write that I agree that nobody is infallible. As you are fond of quoting I actually wrote: "So, a few points here" I added context. The vaccine that you referred to was less safe than the other two available. Not unsafe. Identified and fixed. That's how the process works. Nothing more. You did not write that a problem was discovered and a solution was found. You only wrote the negative. That is unbalanced. That is quite simple and very clear. That is what I addressed. Extrapolating this one (rare) event to imply that it brings doubt to every vaccine or medicine is one of the many strands that raises fears to unrepresentative levels. You are not behaving that differently to the Republican party representatives in the US who are all vaccinated but raise doubts in the rest of the population about vaccine safety and the measures required to reduce infection and spread. They do it with the intent of gaining political benefit through creating division. I am certain that you are interested in having an academic discussion, but the way you do it looks, to me, like raising doubts without balancing them. I cannot help it if you feel offended by my tone and feel that you are being patronised in some way. I have not "dismissed" anything that you have written. Continually making personal references to how you perceive I am addressing you adds nothing. Please stop, if you are able. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face.
I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right?
You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you?
Said it before...imperious!
I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.
Your interpretation of what is written by seems somewhat coloured by assumption. However, you claim to be immune to that and also able to interpret complex information than those who do it for a living. That's not me, that's the people whose job it is.
You can continue to do that and I can continue to challenge you on your determination to endlessly bring their work into question.
I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.
There’s that irony again!
“I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.”
Except you have...
“No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make...”
So we have established you agree with my opening point. What else needed to be said? What value did that bring beyond trying to once again stir it up and discredit something someone has said because you deem it undermining to your accepted narrative?
“I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.”
What exactly in my opening post needed to be questioned?
On the contrary, I like to have balanced conversations and ensure all viewpoints are respected (note I am never dismissive of what you say to others yet you feel the self appointed need to jump in all the time and try to invalidate what is being said (even when you agree with it). Again curious!
You also said...
“...pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty.”
So by your rationale you need to stop raising historical successes of vaccines and changes to process as a justification for why the Covid vaccines are all so good/safe and drawing false certainty! Or is it that you are only allowed to draw a parallel when it supports your acceptable narrative?
It is all quite simple (in terms of this latest bout of posts between us). I said medical authorities are not infallible (and provided a relatively recent example that is contextual - you can be damn sure if I had used a non-vaccine example you would have been all over that too) and you have actually agreed with what I said. Nothing more was required.
Glad it has taken so many words to establish that you agree with me.
There it is again. The need to "win" and to personalise.
I did not say disagree did I?
If it is necessary for your ego I am happy to write that I agree that nobody is infallible.
As you are fond of quoting I actually wrote:
"So, a few points here"
I added context. The vaccine that you referred to was less safe than the other two available. Not unsafe. Identified and fixed. That's how the process works. Nothing more.
You did not write that a problem was discovered and a solution was found. You only wrote the negative. That is unbalanced.
That is quite simple and very clear. That is what I addressed.
Extrapolating this one (rare) event to imply that it brings doubt to every vaccine or medicine is one of the many strands that raises fears to unrepresentative levels.
You are not behaving that differently to the Republican party representatives in the US who are all vaccinated but raise doubts in the rest of the population about vaccine safety and the measures required to reduce infection and spread.
They do it with the intent of gaining political benefit through creating division. I am certain that you are interested in having an academic discussion, but the way you do it looks, to me, like raising doubts without balancing them.
I cannot help it if you feel offended by my tone and feel that you are being patronised in some way. I have not "dismissed" anything that you have written. Continually making personal references to how you perceive I am addressing you adds nothing. Please stop, if you are able."Wrong thread me thinks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face.
I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right?
You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you?
Said it before...imperious!
I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.
Your interpretation of what is written by seems somewhat coloured by assumption. However, you claim to be immune to that and also able to interpret complex information than those who do it for a living. That's not me, that's the people whose job it is.
You can continue to do that and I can continue to challenge you on your determination to endlessly bring their work into question.
I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.
There’s that irony again!
“I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.”
Except you have...
“No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make...”
So we have established you agree with my opening point. What else needed to be said? What value did that bring beyond trying to once again stir it up and discredit something someone has said because you deem it undermining to your accepted narrative?
“I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.”
What exactly in my opening post needed to be questioned?
On the contrary, I like to have balanced conversations and ensure all viewpoints are respected (note I am never dismissive of what you say to others yet you feel the self appointed need to jump in all the time and try to invalidate what is being said (even when you agree with it). Again curious!
You also said...
“...pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty.”
So by your rationale you need to stop raising historical successes of vaccines and changes to process as a justification for why the Covid vaccines are all so good/safe and drawing false certainty! Or is it that you are only allowed to draw a parallel when it supports your acceptable narrative?
It is all quite simple (in terms of this latest bout of posts between us). I said medical authorities are not infallible (and provided a relatively recent example that is contextual - you can be damn sure if I had used a non-vaccine example you would have been all over that too) and you have actually agreed with what I said. Nothing more was required.
Glad it has taken so many words to establish that you agree with me.
There it is again. The need to "win" and to personalise.
I did not say disagree did I?
If it is necessary for your ego I am happy to write that I agree that nobody is infallible.
As you are fond of quoting I actually wrote:
"So, a few points here"
I added context. The vaccine that you referred to was less safe than the other two available. Not unsafe. Identified and fixed. That's how the process works. Nothing more.
You did not write that a problem was discovered and a solution was found. You only wrote the negative. That is unbalanced.
That is quite simple and very clear. That is what I addressed.
Extrapolating this one (rare) event to imply that it brings doubt to every vaccine or medicine is one of the many strands that raises fears to unrepresentative levels.
You are not behaving that differently to the Republican party representatives in the US who are all vaccinated but raise doubts in the rest of the population about vaccine safety and the measures required to reduce infection and spread.
They do it with the intent of gaining political benefit through creating division. I am certain that you are interested in having an academic discussion, but the way you do it looks, to me, like raising doubts without balancing them.
I cannot help it if you feel offended by my tone and feel that you are being patronised in some way. I have not "dismissed" anything that you have written. Continually making personal references to how you perceive I am addressing you adds nothing. Please stop, if you are able."Oh dear we always end up on the merry-go-round. Your twisting of what is said and underpinning it with implied intent is quite tiresome. It really is a waste of time. I did not extrapolate anything to imply anything. It is all in your head and unhealthy desire for oneupmanship. I merely provided a highly relevant example (there are plenty others but this was particularly relevant due to mandatory vaccination of MGS staff) to illustrate the single point I was making. That being that medical authorities/bodies are not infallible. You have agreed with that point. So there simply is no other point to discuss. You are coming across in this thread and others as a “counter conspiracy theorist” ie you are so convinced everyone has a hidden agenda to undermine or attack the official narrative that you feel some undeniable need to jump in and discredit what has been said, just in case it might be interpreted as something more than was actually said! Seriously EasyUK sometimes things are just what they are not something else beneath the surface. As for your tone, well it isn’t just me saying it. Almost everyone else is capable of a decent discussion or debate. Most people are able to be respectful of different viewpoints even if they strongly disagree. Can’t you try to as well? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. "
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The wife works in an A&E and lots of staff are not vaccinated so will at the moment mean they will me sacked. So will be grater wating times. Lots have said they will then get vaccinated and go and work for the agency's for more money... Good for them. I'm against mandatory vaccines. It made sense earlier in 2021 but not now. I agree entirely. I am vaccinated, had my boosters and will continue to do so whilst I think it is appropriate for my personal circumstances but a mandate against a virus that the government themselves say is milder seems bizarre. I am not making a judgement on the severity or people personal choices but on the fact that the directive seems to be contradictory to the evidence being put forward by the people mandating it The vaccinations started 12 months before Omicron appeared. The mandate is not for a specific variant so no idea why you have raised that point... I understand, but it is clear that the risk of serious illness has lowered, I am, as stated vaccinated and a supporter of vaccination but mandating it for all at a time when the risk is lowered seems to defy the logic of ‘following the science’ I believe that everyone should be able to choose even if their choice is different to mine So we should wait until a new variant that's more serious before considering making it mandatory? So, that will be after the horse has bolted? I believe everybody should choose too but that choice shouldn't be made based on misinformation. There is a post on here at the moment about VAERS but looks like too many people seem to think VAERS is some fool proof / confirmed source of injury from the vaccine. Microchips? Control? Load of crap. I believe we should wait until a more serious variant, one may not occur then great, one may occur and there is no guarantee that the current vaccine will work against it. I don’t believe that we should mandate something based on so many unknown variables. Do I support vaccines? Absolutely But I also support freedom and proportionate responses Whilst many people distrust the government (for good reason). Wouldnt it be more sensible to follow the guidance and information given by the RCN, BMA, GMC (the main professional bodies for nursing/doctors) which is to be vaccinated. Yes Omicron may be 'milder' in general but that does not make it non-lethal for some and of course Delta is still around, just not the dominant strain. I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other. Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible... https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948 “Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs? [extract] In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said. Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement. Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.” So, a few points here. There was a "higher" rate of adverse side effects than the two other vaccines in use. The rate was still very low (5069 out of 73 million doses). The fact that this elevated rate was not adequately investigated at the time is of concern. However, you know about it because the real data was published and identified and highlighted. Nothing was made up or reinterpreted. The process has now changed to correct this failure. That's how science works. If you don't want to be vaccinated and you don't want believe better educated and informed people on this topic than you, then don't. However, pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty, even if it makes you feel better in your belief that you "know the truth". Do you ever actually read what is written or do you simply jump into posts to spout off and deliberately miss the point actually being made? Let me make it really simple for you... “I think the medical professional bodies are better placed that anyone here to make a recomendation one way or the other.” To which I replied... “Not saying your statement is wrong on medical bodies but let’s not for moment say they are infallible...” Then provided an example. What part of what I posted wasn’t true? You also make some statement about my vaccine status. I have states before on other threads, including discussions with you, that I (we) are vaccinated. However, my vaccine status is irrelevant to the point being made. You really need to get off your high horse! It's lucky that you are not at all patronising and completely neutral in your views otherwise where would we be?
No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make, but they are many times more likely to be correct than you or me or anyone else who does not actually have sufficient knowledge and understanding.
The vaccine that you were animated was safe, bit less so than the others available.
The entire purpose of the reporting process is to catch any errors, however small.
I do not care about your vaccine status or anyone elses unless they are in my face.
I’m sure your reply was deliberately ironic right?
You gotta love how you have self appointed yourself to determine what points should and should not be made in these forums. I think we can safely leave that to the moderators don’t you?
Said it before...imperious!
I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.
Your interpretation of what is written by seems somewhat coloured by assumption. However, you claim to be immune to that and also able to interpret complex information than those who do it for a living. That's not me, that's the people whose job it is.
You can continue to do that and I can continue to challenge you on your determination to endlessly bring their work into question.
I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.
There’s that irony again!
“I haven't said anything about what is and is not acceptable.”
Except you have...
“No individual or organisation in infallible. It's not even a point that you need to make...”
So we have established you agree with my opening point. What else needed to be said? What value did that bring beyond trying to once again stir it up and discredit something someone has said because you deem it undermining to your accepted narrative?
“I cannot help it if you don't like being questioned.”
What exactly in my opening post needed to be questioned?
On the contrary, I like to have balanced conversations and ensure all viewpoints are respected (note I am never dismissive of what you say to others yet you feel the self appointed need to jump in all the time and try to invalidate what is being said (even when you agree with it). Again curious!
You also said...
“...pointing to a previous event and claiming that there is a parallel with no information to connect them raises false uncertainty.”
So by your rationale you need to stop raising historical successes of vaccines and changes to process as a justification for why the Covid vaccines are all so good/safe and drawing false certainty! Or is it that you are only allowed to draw a parallel when it supports your acceptable narrative?
It is all quite simple (in terms of this latest bout of posts between us). I said medical authorities are not infallible (and provided a relatively recent example that is contextual - you can be damn sure if I had used a non-vaccine example you would have been all over that too) and you have actually agreed with what I said. Nothing more was required.
Glad it has taken so many words to establish that you agree with me.
There it is again. The need to "win" and to personalise.
I did not say disagree did I?
If it is necessary for your ego I am happy to write that I agree that nobody is infallible.
As you are fond of quoting I actually wrote:
"So, a few points here"
I added context. The vaccine that you referred to was less safe than the other two available. Not unsafe. Identified and fixed. That's how the process works. Nothing more.
You did not write that a problem was discovered and a solution was found. You only wrote the negative. That is unbalanced.
That is quite simple and very clear. That is what I addressed.
Extrapolating this one (rare) event to imply that it brings doubt to every vaccine or medicine is one of the many strands that raises fears to unrepresentative levels.
You are not behaving that differently to the Republican party representatives in the US who are all vaccinated but raise doubts in the rest of the population about vaccine safety and the measures required to reduce infection and spread.
They do it with the intent of gaining political benefit through creating division. I am certain that you are interested in having an academic discussion, but the way you do it looks, to me, like raising doubts without balancing them.
I cannot help it if you feel offended by my tone and feel that you are being patronised in some way. I have not "dismissed" anything that you have written. Continually making personal references to how you perceive I am addressing you adds nothing. Please stop, if you are able.
Oh dear we always end up on the merry-go-round. Your twisting of what is said and underpinning it with implied intent is quite tiresome. It really is a waste of time.
I did not extrapolate anything to imply anything. It is all in your head and unhealthy desire for oneupmanship.
I merely provided a highly relevant example (there are plenty others but this was particularly relevant due to mandatory vaccination of MGS staff) to illustrate the single point I was making. That being that medical authorities/bodies are not infallible. You have agreed with that point. So there simply is no other point to discuss.
You are coming across in this thread and others as a “counter conspiracy theorist” ie you are so convinced everyone has a hidden agenda to undermine or attack the official narrative that you feel some undeniable need to jump in and discredit what has been said, just in case it might be interpreted as something more than was actually said!
Seriously EasyUK sometimes things are just what they are not something else beneath the surface.
As for your tone, well it isn’t just me saying it. Almost everyone else is capable of a decent discussion or debate. Most people are able to be respectful of different viewpoints even if they strongly disagree. Can’t you try to as well?"...and your "balanced view" only gave one side of the story. If you claim to be balanced, then be balanced and don't get upset if I, or someone else, adds context when you do not. Not "discredited". You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of because you are assuming that I am being personal and reacting as such. Do you not see that? What do you actually object to about what I wrote other than my "tone"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full."One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise? At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it? The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@EasyUK I didn’t need to be balanced in my opening point (to someone else not you) as I started with a qualifying statement. But then you know that don’t you! Again you will have seen that I do not comment on your posts replying to others. From now on please do likewise with my posts as it is a continuously circular discussion and a waste of time. If you cannot do that, then from now on your posts to me will be met like this... ***tumble***" Ha ha that word gets filtered! ***t u m b l e w e e d*** | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@EasyUK I didn’t need to be balanced in my opening point (to someone else not you) as I started with a qualifying statement. But then you know that don’t you! Again you will have seen that I do not comment on your posts replying to others. From now on please do likewise with my posts as it is a continuously circular discussion and a waste of time. If you cannot do that, then from now on your posts to me will be met like this... ***tumble*** Ha ha that word gets filtered! ***t u m b l e w e e d***" How disapointing, just as I was chuckling at the visualisation of you reading a post then promptly falling into a 'tumble' you go and clarify things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@EasyUK I didn’t need to be balanced in my opening point (to someone else not you) as I started with a qualifying statement. But then you know that don’t you! Again you will have seen that I do not comment on your posts replying to others. From now on please do likewise with my posts as it is a continuously circular discussion and a waste of time. If you cannot do that, then from now on your posts to me will be met like this... ***tumble*** Ha ha that word gets filtered! ***t u m b l e w e e d*** How disapointing, just as I was chuckling at the visualisation of you reading a post then promptly falling into a 'tumble' you go and clarify things " if you have young kids then you also cannot get that bloomin Mr Tumble out of your head! “It’s time to sign” (only parents will get that) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did not see anything about protests but we are more practical up north. The big news here is Samuel L Jackson stalking. Much more fun "Yep poor notherners out for a quiet pint in Huddersfield and Samuel L Jackson walks in. Id have been more interested to see if his wallet really did have 'bad mother f**ker' on it than any protests | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@EasyUK I didn’t need to be balanced in my opening point (to someone else not you) as I started with a qualifying statement. But then you know that don’t you! Again you will have seen that I do not comment on your posts replying to others. From now on please do likewise with my posts as it is a continuously circular discussion and a waste of time. If you cannot do that, then from now on your posts to me will be met like this... ***tumble*** Ha ha that word gets filtered! ***t u m b l e w e e d*** How disapointing, just as I was chuckling at the visualisation of you reading a post then promptly falling into a 'tumble' you go and clarify things
if you have young kids then you also cannot get that bloomin Mr Tumble out of your head! “It’s time to sign” (only parents will get that) "Im a grandparent so am well aware of Mr Tumble, you have my sympathies .. thankfully he scares the youngest grandson so instead we endure Gordon the Geko and dirty diggers ... sounds dodgy but its not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta."Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta? A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy. Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this. Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this. Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID. The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@EasyUK I didn’t need to be balanced in my opening point (to someone else not you) as I started with a qualifying statement. But then you know that don’t you! Again you will have seen that I do not comment on your posts replying to others. From now on please do likewise with my posts as it is a continuously circular discussion and a waste of time. If you cannot do that, then from now on your posts to me will be met like this... ***tumble*** Ha ha that word gets filtered! ***t u m b l e w e e d*** How disapointing, just as I was chuckling at the visualisation of you reading a post then promptly falling into a 'tumble' you go and clarify things
if you have young kids then you also cannot get that bloomin Mr Tumble out of your head! “It’s time to sign” (only parents will get that)
Im a grandparent so am well aware of Mr Tumble, you have my sympathies .. thankfully he scares the youngest grandson so instead we endure Gordon the Geko and dirty diggers ... sounds dodgy but its not "Dirty Diggers - that sounds like dodgy Aussie porn! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers."Conversation would be different if omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants, because less people would be complacent, thinking it’s just a sniffle or that they will be fine. Just because vaccines don’t offer 100 per cent protection, doesn’t mean that they are useless. They have saved tons of lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It must be noted that all those that work in hospitals eg. doctors/nurses/etc ALL get tested as soon as they walk through the door regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated. Isn’t that safe enough? " No we don't get tested at all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
Conversation would be different if omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants, because less people would be complacent, thinking it’s just a sniffle or that they will be fine.
Just because vaccines don’t offer 100 per cent protection, doesn’t mean that they are useless. They have saved tons of lives. "If the COVID vaccines offered very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy, the conversation would be different. If Omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants then the NHS would be even more reliant on testing because it cannot rely on the COVID vaccines. That is the simple truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is protests all over the world today, from england to austrailia against the restrictions and the vaccine mandates, are you also following the updates and how do you think it is going? " I'm not going to any, I'm not following it, i don't care how it's going. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@EasyUK I didn’t need to be balanced in my opening point (to someone else not you) as I started with a qualifying statement. But then you know that don’t you! Again you will have seen that I do not comment on your posts replying to others. From now on please do likewise with my posts as it is a continuously circular discussion and a waste of time. If you cannot do that, then from now on your posts to me will be met like this... ***tumble*** Ha ha that word gets filtered! ***t u m b l e w e e d***" I will write as I feel appropriate. You respond as you feel appropriate. Suits me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
Conversation would be different if omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants, because less people would be complacent, thinking it’s just a sniffle or that they will be fine.
Just because vaccines don’t offer 100 per cent protection, doesn’t mean that they are useless. They have saved tons of lives.
If the COVID vaccines offered very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy, the conversation would be different.
If Omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants then the NHS would be even more reliant on testing because it cannot rely on the COVID vaccines.
That is the simple truth."The vaccines do have a high success rate. That is the simple truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And if the do proceed with the NHS vaccine and staff do leave that will very very very handily play in to the hands of our current crop of so called leaders and their hidden backers and donors ....The NHS isn't working..The NHS isn't fit for purpose etc etc and we need a more privatisation..cue ...American Big Health Care and ironicaly American Big PHarma ?? cue low wages..low staff... ".. where would we be without conspiracies ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
Conversation would be different if omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants, because less people would be complacent, thinking it’s just a sniffle or that they will be fine.
Just because vaccines don’t offer 100 per cent protection, doesn’t mean that they are useless. They have saved tons of lives.
If the COVID vaccines offered very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy, the conversation would be different.
If Omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants then the NHS would be even more reliant on testing because it cannot rely on the COVID vaccines.
That is the simple truth.
The vaccines do have a high success rate. That is the simple truth.
"Define success. If your definition of a high success rate is having to keep vaccinated NHS staff at home because they've caught COVID after having one, two or three jabs, then that doesn't sound like a success to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers."You do not define what a vaccine "needs" to be. You are neither knowledgeable or qualified to do so. Ideally it prevents the majority of people who receive it from serious illness and death. Preferably, it also reduces the chance of being infected and the chance of infecting others. All these factors are covered for variants up to and including Delta. It is less effective for Omicron but still very effective with a booster, particularly for preventing severe illness and death. Testing is also not fully reliable. Vaccines are a significant part of multiple precautions taken to minimise transmission risk. A layered approach. A term which you misused somewhere else. The Swiss cheese model: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-40ac92b1-1750-4e86-9936-2cda6b0acb3f It is not about treating anyone like lepers. It's about minimising the risk of hospital acquired infection for those at their most vulnerable. It's a difficult decision to make which is a harder call with Omicron appearing less severe than if it has been as serious or more so and the threat was growing. Vaccines are, by their nature, preventative and take some time to be fully effective. Consequently to minimise a potentially more lethal strain you would need to vaccinate before it becomes apparent as a problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
Conversation would be different if omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants, because less people would be complacent, thinking it’s just a sniffle or that they will be fine.
Just because vaccines don’t offer 100 per cent protection, doesn’t mean that they are useless. They have saved tons of lives.
If the COVID vaccines offered very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy, the conversation would be different.
If Omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants then the NHS would be even more reliant on testing because it cannot rely on the COVID vaccines.
That is the simple truth.
The vaccines do have a high success rate. That is the simple truth.
Define success.
If your definition of a high success rate is having to keep vaccinated NHS staff at home because they've caught COVID after having one, two or three jabs, then that doesn't sound like a success to me."One definition of success for me is that those staff are not in hospital being treated by their colleagues for severe illness. Another definition is that they are less likely to have caught it and be at home or to have passed it on. It is relative. The situation in is BETTER. When you are talking about over 1.3 million staff a few percent is a lot of people infecting or being infected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
You do not define what a vaccine "needs" to be. You are neither knowledgeable or qualified to do so.
Ideally it prevents the majority of people who receive it from serious illness and death.
Preferably, it also reduces the chance of being infected and the chance of infecting others.
All these factors are covered for variants up to and including Delta.
It is less effective for Omicron but still very effective with a booster, particularly for preventing severe illness and death.
Testing is also not fully reliable.
Vaccines are a significant part of multiple precautions taken to minimise transmission risk. A layered approach. A term which you misused somewhere else. The Swiss cheese model:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-40ac92b1-1750-4e86-9936-2cda6b0acb3f
It is not about treating anyone like lepers. It's about minimising the risk of hospital acquired infection for those at their most vulnerable.
It's a difficult decision to make which is a harder call with Omicron appearing less severe than if it has been as serious or more so and the threat was growing. Vaccines are, by their nature, preventative and take some time to be fully effective. Consequently to minimise a potentially more lethal strain you would need to vaccinate before it becomes apparent as a problem."So let me get this straight. You say I am neither knowledgeable and qualified to define what a vaccine "needs" to be. Then you rattle off what a vaccine needs to be! Is there any limit to your arrogance and BS? You say it is "preferable" it also reduces the chance of being infected and the chance of infecting others. It is CRUCIAL it reduces the chance of being infected and the chance of infecting others to a very low level. Reducing the chance of infection and transmission isn't a threshold requirement. It is an objective requirement. I'm glad you've finally admitted that testing is not fully reliable. As for a layered approach, I didn't misuse it 'somewhere else'. A surgeon wearing a visor and mask is an example of a layered defence against blood splatter. But no doubt you are more knowledgeable and qualified than I am to say if that is correct! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
Conversation would be different if omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants, because less people would be complacent, thinking it’s just a sniffle or that they will be fine.
Just because vaccines don’t offer 100 per cent protection, doesn’t mean that they are useless. They have saved tons of lives.
If the COVID vaccines offered very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy, the conversation would be different.
If Omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants then the NHS would be even more reliant on testing because it cannot rely on the COVID vaccines.
That is the simple truth.
The vaccines do have a high success rate. That is the simple truth.
Define success.
If your definition of a high success rate is having to keep vaccinated NHS staff at home because they've caught COVID after having one, two or three jabs, then that doesn't sound like a success to me.
One definition of success for me is that those staff are not in hospital being treated by their colleagues for severe illness.
Another definition is that they are less likely to have caught it and be at home or to have passed it on.
It is relative. The situation in is BETTER. When you are talking about over 1.3 million staff a few percent is a lot of people infecting or being infected."They've already caught COVID, so how can they be 'less likely to have caught it'? If you start from a very low level, anything can be considered a success. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The little bit I don't understand this if it's so important that all frontline NHS staff are jabbed, why have they got until the 1st of April, when the winter wave will be finished. It seems to me, like we have used them to get through the winter, when hospitals are traditionally very busy and then don't need them as much in April, so they are more disposable then if they leave because of the mandate, as we will have had them through the winter when we most needed them." Exactly! If they were such a risk to public health they would be told to stay at home. But follow the science! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The little bit I don't understand this if it's so important that all frontline NHS staff are jabbed, why have they got until the 1st of April, when the winter wave will be finished. It seems to me, like we have used them to get through the winter, when hospitals are traditionally very busy and then don't need them as much in April, so they are more disposable then if they leave because of the mandate, as we will have had them through the winter when we most needed them. Exactly! If they were such a risk to public health they would be told to stay at home. But follow the science!" It's really difficult to actually follow the science because science is not one opinion and different scientists have lots of different opinions that seem to conflict with each other. It's not really like following the yellow brick road where there's just one route leading to one destination, it's all over the place like a spaghetti junction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The little bit I don't understand this if it's so important that all frontline NHS staff are jabbed, why have they got until the 1st of April, when the winter wave will be finished. It seems to me, like we have used them to get through the winter, when hospitals are traditionally very busy and then don't need them as much in April, so they are more disposable then if they leave because of the mandate, as we will have had them through the winter when we most needed them." This . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
You do not define what a vaccine "needs" to be. You are neither knowledgeable or qualified to do so.
Ideally it prevents the majority of people who receive it from serious illness and death.
Preferably, it also reduces the chance of being infected and the chance of infecting others.
All these factors are covered for variants up to and including Delta.
It is less effective for Omicron but still very effective with a booster, particularly for preventing severe illness and death.
Testing is also not fully reliable.
Vaccines are a significant part of multiple precautions taken to minimise transmission risk. A layered approach. A term which you misused somewhere else. The Swiss cheese model:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-40ac92b1-1750-4e86-9936-2cda6b0acb3f
It is not about treating anyone like lepers. It's about minimising the risk of hospital acquired infection for those at their most vulnerable.
It's a difficult decision to make which is a harder call with Omicron appearing less severe than if it has been as serious or more so and the threat was growing. Vaccines are, by their nature, preventative and take some time to be fully effective. Consequently to minimise a potentially more lethal strain you would need to vaccinate before it becomes apparent as a problem.
So let me get this straight.
You say I am neither knowledgeable and qualified to define what a vaccine "needs" to be.
Then you rattle off what a vaccine needs to be!
Is there any limit to your arrogance and BS?
You say it is "preferable" it also reduces the chance of being infected and the chance of infecting others.
It is CRUCIAL it reduces the chance of being infected and the chance of infecting others to a very low level.
Reducing the chance of infection and transmission isn't a threshold requirement. It is an objective requirement.
I'm glad you've finally admitted that testing is not fully reliable.
As for a layered approach, I didn't misuse it 'somewhere else'. A surgeon wearing a visor and mask is an example of a layered defence against blood splatter.
But no doubt you are more knowledgeable and qualified than I am to say if that is correct!"No. I didn't say what it "needs to be". I listed some of the things that it would ideally or hopefully achieve. It does not define a requirement for it to fulfil as you did. As you have underlined again by stating what is "CRUCIAL". If you cannot or will not accept that small improvements have big consequences at this scale then it is difficult to explain further. However, if you have some conception about layered defence to argue in favour of them in with surgical equipment then you understand why vaccines and masks and hand washing and distance are all part of a strategy to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. You have come to the same conclusion as the medical, scientific and public health professionals whose advice I am repeating without reinterpretation or manipulation but about which I am relatively poorly educated in comparison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs.
Now imagine if everyone who stood on their doorsteps to clap for the NHS workers were also willing to stand up for their rights to continue their employment then the streets would be full.
One question then, is should NHS staff in roles which currently require vaccines not have to have them now? If not, why not? Is it not acceptable to introduce new requirements of circumstances, like a global pandemic arise?
At some point, if there is a clinical requirement, something needs to be done, doesn't it?
The discussion would probably be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta.
Why would the discussion be very different if Omicron had turned out to be more fatal than Delta?
A vaccine needs to provide very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy.
Vaccines for smallpox, polio etc. do this.
Currently, none of the COVID vaccines do this.
Consequently staff, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, are having to be tested to prove they do/do not have COVID.
The only thing that needs to change is treating unvaccinated people, in particular NHS staff, like lepers.
Conversation would be different if omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants, because less people would be complacent, thinking it’s just a sniffle or that they will be fine.
Just because vaccines don’t offer 100 per cent protection, doesn’t mean that they are useless. They have saved tons of lives.
If the COVID vaccines offered very high levels of consistent and reliable efficacy, the conversation would be different.
If Omicron was more dangerous than the earlier variants then the NHS would be even more reliant on testing because it cannot rely on the COVID vaccines.
That is the simple truth.
The vaccines do have a high success rate. That is the simple truth.
Define success.
If your definition of a high success rate is having to keep vaccinated NHS staff at home because they've caught COVID after having one, two or three jabs, then that doesn't sound like a success to me.
One definition of success for me is that those staff are not in hospital being treated by their colleagues for severe illness.
Another definition is that they are less likely to have caught it and be at home or to have passed it on.
It is relative. The situation in is BETTER. When you are talking about over 1.3 million staff a few percent is a lot of people infecting or being infected.
They've already caught COVID, so how can they be 'less likely to have caught it'?
If you start from a very low level, anything can be considered a success."Because a smaller number have actually become infected than would have if so many had not been vaccinated. There are also fewer staff severely ill as the vaccine reduces the severity of illness if caught. This is all positive, isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good on them, glad to see so many standing up for what the believe. I see there are 1000's of NHS staff marching in London today protesting about the vaccine mandates. I'm proud of people who stand up for their beliefs. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The little bit I don't understand this if it's so important that all frontline NHS staff are jabbed, why have they got until the 1st of April, when the winter wave will be finished. It seems to me, like we have used them to get through the winter, when hospitals are traditionally very busy and then don't need them as much in April, so they are more disposable then if they leave because of the mandate, as we will have had them through the winter when we most needed them." The vaccine was only introduced one year ago. The preferred route has always been for voluntary vaccination. To provide the time and information to come to their own decision as recommended by all medical organisations. Then a long period of warning was given to allow individuals to reconsider. At this point it is probably not unfair to say that minds are made up and not likely to change. Throughout the process there has been a difficult balance of clinical risk and fairness to staff. I'm not sure what another process would be. You are correct that it is possible that there was a pragmatic, possibly cynical, view on when this would cause the least disruption. Risk management sometimes takes that route and does not allow for compassion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
