Forum menu
I just don’t agree with you. But how on earth can you think that this most ridiculous analogy is “nicely put”?! Pffff – bit early to be drinking
Because its a coercive invasive medical treatment for the greater good
And if you feel that the answer to that is “yes” then change jobs
The issue you have with this approach, is that the NHS is already understaffed.
If we take your approach and say 5%* of the NHS workforce is forced to leave, then what happens the next time you need treatment?
You're going to have to wait longer for that treatment....
I'm sure the majority of clinical staff are vaccinated. It will be the secondary front line staff where uptake is lower.
Also, if its NHS staff, what about all other types of front line staff?
Should we also include, Police, Teachers, Supermarket workers, etc??
*This is the number currently estimated by NHS Wales
I wrote a long post about your logical fallacy TJ... But then thought what's the ****ing point, you will argue as devil's advocate regardless of any alternative viewpoint because you want to intellectualise this and reject anything else as simplistic because you did a course at some point.
But at the end of the day if you’re a doctor or a nurse or a surgeon or otherwise on the front line dealing with vulnerable people who are potentially immunocompromised or worse,
You seem to have a childlike grasp of what whole sectors of the NHS actually does.
Edit... just for clarity, I am frontline* and I was first in line for the vaccine (my choice).
*frontline? hate that phrase!
Reeksy - I would be interested in where you see the logical fallacy - and actually I have had a lifelong interest in medical ethics and have studied it at honours degree level.
Read this - from two highly respected professors. From the BMJ
Lydia Hayes, professor of law1, Allyson M Pollock, professor of public health2
Author affiliations
Correspondence to: L Hayes L.J.Hayes@kent.ac.uk
Unnecessary, disproportionate, and misguided
In a profound departure from public health norms, new law will remove the right of care home staff in England to choose whether to be vaccinated against covid-19.1 The intended next step is a rapid and massive expansion of compulsory vaccination legally to require covid-19 and flu vaccination of all frontline health and social care workers, subject to consultation.2
Official claims that “we are not forcing anyone to take the vaccine” are disingenuous.1 Care home workers who reject covid-19 vaccination will be dismissed from employment without compensation and be barred from access to their occupation. A regulatory amendment will make it unlawful for care homes to permit care workers to enter the care home premises without proof of full vaccination.1 This will impose a new duty on all registered providers of residential care to verify the medical status of each worker, including full time and part time agency staff, staff employed directly by a care home, and volunteers. It will give responsibility for compliance and enforcement to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
The providers’ associations Care England and the National Care Forum, as well as trade unions, have expressed concern that coercion is not the best way forward.3456 Vaccination is not a panacea for safety. Safety, according to current regulatory law, is achieved through adequate staffing levels, training, equipment, cleanliness, personal protective equipment, risk assessment, and consultation with staff and residents.7 Care home residents accounted for 40% of all covid-19 deaths in the first wave and 26% in the second wave, as a result of long term problems with care home provision, including staff shortages, but also deficiencies in the pandemic response.8
Vaccination protects individuals from covid-19 and reduces the risk of transmission of disease to others.9 Vaccine efficacy against reinfection after two doses is around 85-90%, efficacy against risk of hospital admission and death from covid-19 is even higher.910 Crucially, previous infection affords immunity against reinfection and provides comparable protection to vaccination.1112 However, the duration of protection (particularly against new variants) remains unknown after either vaccination13 or infection.
The “liberty of non-vaccination” is a principle established in UK law since 1898. It followed vigorous and widespread protest about compulsory vaccination for smallpox that was imposed by the Vaccination Act 1853. Amendments to the Vaccination Act in 1898 and 1907 provided legal recognition of conscientious objection for those who were “honestly opposed” to vaccination and noted, too, the contribution of improved sanitation to the drop in smallpox.14
Compulsory vaccination has not been attempted since in the UK. The Coronavirus Act 2020 was careful to avoid changes to the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which excluded mandatory medical treatment, including vaccination, from the secretary of state for health and social care’s power.15
Wales and Scotland have rejected compulsory vaccination for care workers. Vaccine uptake for care workers in Wales is over 96% for the first vaccination and 85% for the second.16 “Virtually all” care home staff in Scotland have been vaccinated.17 Wales and Scotland have invested in systems of mandatory registration for care workers. Care worker registration aims to professionalise the sector, increase access to training, and embed a culture of continuous professional development. In England, successive ministers have rejected national care worker registration. The Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC therefore don’t know who England’s care workers are, and training of the care workforce is woefully inadequate. The Scientific and Advisory Group for Emergencies has recommended a threshold for minimum protection in residential care homes of 80% of care workers and 90% of residents to have had a first vaccination.18 By 20 June 2021, over 90% of care home residents in England had received two doses of a covid-19 vaccine, 84% of care workers in England had received a first dose, and 72% of care workers had received a second dose.19
The government’s decision on compulsory vaccination for care home workers was based on claims of low vaccine take-up in some care homes that were subsequently echoed in media reports.20 However, closer scrutiny of most recent data shows that uptake of the first dose of covid-19 vaccination among care workers is below 80% (68-74%) in only three upper tier local authorities in England, but these numbers are an artefact of very low numbers of staff employed by care homes in these three. For instance, the lowest uptake of the second vaccine is in Haringey, with only 355 eligible staff in its older adult care homes compared with many thousands of staff in other local authorities.21 Moreover, the government’s own methodology note warns that the numbers of staff and residents who have not received the vaccine cannot be directly derived from its data.22
Civil liberty is a necessary component of strong public health. Mandatory vaccination is unnecessary and disproportionate. It will not remedy the serious shortcomings of the care sector in England. Safety can be assured only by taking steps to build trust and to mitigate outbreaks. Care workers need paid time in which to access vaccination and good training, decent wages (including sick pay), personal protective equipment, and strong infection control measures. Mandatory vaccination in residential care is unnecessary, disproportionate, and misguided.
Footnotes
Because its a coercive invasive medical treatment for the greater good
And you think getting the covid jab is equivalent to enforced male sterilisation?
Sorry mate, you've lost it.
The principle is the same. thats the point. By making this mandated vaccination then we are overturning the whole world of medical ethics
Having studied this, perhaps you could come up with a slightly less batshit example? Perhaps that might convince us?
Edit: also it's not remotely the same principle. Forced sterilisation of all males vs have this Jab (which is proved to be safe and effective) or lose your Job.
they are being coerced under threat of losing their livelihood and being put into penury as a result.
Or changing job roles to somewhere they're less of a threat to society.
No benefits for 6 wks, no ability to return to healthcare ever.
And why do we think that might be?
this is an invasive medical treatment with ( rare but serious) side effects
Away an' shite. So is eating peanuts.
Two more BMJ links
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1975
The second one I wanted to post shows that actually mandatory vaccinations are counterproductive but it will not open the full article
with that I am out. as you can see from my BMJ quotes I am not making this stuff up. this is a very serious step, its possibly counter productive
complex moral and ethical arguments cannot be solved by simplistic analysis
Having studied this, perhaps you could come up with a slightly less batshit example?
Read the big long quote from the BMJ
If the vaccine mandate was in place before they took employment its of no issues – its retrospectively changing the rules where the problem lies and also coercing people into taking invasive medical treatments
So basically your entire argument has the square root of **** all to do with vaccination at all, your beef is about a contractual change?
That stance at least I can get behind, but I'm afraid it happens all the time only usually for less emotive reasons. It's routine, I've had it done to me several times over. But it's always been consensual, in so far as I can accept the new terms or I can leave.
I have never seen coercive measures used in medicine for competent people before.
Competent medical practitioners are highly unlikely to refuse vaccines. An anti-vax doctor ain't all that competent.
There is a moral and ethical dimension that you are not seeing here cougar that I have tried to explain
actually I have had a lifelong interest in medical ethics and have studied it at honours degree level.
OK, so you're well aware that autonomy is not the only facet of a situation that needs to be considered (For others who may be reading, ethical decisions are typically considered in terms of four 'pillars'. 1st google result, I haven't read it: https://www.themedicportal.com/application-guide/medical-school-interview/medical-ethics/). As with anything, there are competing arguments and proportionality has to be applied. Fixating on a single aspect is being obtuse (there is absolutely a non-maleficence issue here which you are choosing to ignore).
Besides, no one is forcing ('coercing') anyone to be vaccinated and there is no issue around bodily autonomy here. I said earlier in the thread "I prefer when my doctor washes his hands." The doctor isn't forced, or coerced, to wash their hands between patients, but you might expect their fitness to practice to be called into question if they ignore such basic hygiene measures.
What happens if a patient dies after catching Covid, which can be traced back to an anti-vax nutjob nurse who didn't get the vaccine and refused to wear a mask while seeing patients? Should that nurse be allowed to practise? I'd certainly be happier if they were not frontline.
To be clear, I am not currently in support of vaccine mandates, and there is an ethical angle here that absolutely warrants discussion. But your belligerence is startling - ironically, this is the heel-digging mindset that allows anti-vax people to commit to their cause more vehemently. There but for the grave of god you go...
as you can see from my BMJ quotes I am not making this stuff up.
No, you're cherry-picking.
Seems pointless political ploy to me.
If you want to work with highly vulnerable, sick and elderly people, is it a great ask to get a vaccination against a potentially deadly disease in the middle of a global pandemic?
False logic. You can still pass on COVID if you're jabbed so not sure what the point of the policy is as it is not actually providing any additional protection to anyone other than those who choose not to be jabbed to reduce their own chances of serious illness from the infection. The vaccination doesn't stop any spread of infection. The viral load you receive from someone who is jabbed is the same as from someone who isn't jabbed.
For the care sector the priority has to be in the fastest possible detection of infected people and isolating them so they cannot pass the infection on. And in any case most of the infections received under care was from other patients and not staff, so nurses being jabbed wont change this.
It doesn't even prevent absenteeism in the care sector as you still have to isolate if you get a positive test result jabbed or not.
The vaccination is extremely effective at preventing serious illness in those who are infected and this is where we need to focus our efforts so ultimately the number of infections is irrelevant and why we're still tracking this as the primary measure is beyond. me. Got COVID? so what if you're jabbed. Why some people are choosing not to take the vaccines is a completely different issue and certainly needs tackling, but the answer to it is not mandatory vaccines. We don't do that with other infection diseases most of which are far more lethal than COVID.
On a building site you’d be expected to wear a hard hat.
Not if you are a Sikh you don't. So not completely mandatory and even here there are exceptions that don't lead you to lose your job. There are many legitimate reasons why someone might refuse the vaccines...it's not just about anti-vaxers. But ultimately the only person they're risking or hurting are themselves.
I have to say I now appreciate it’s a more nuanced problem that it first appears after reading tjagains arguments.
I’m still of the opinion that patient safety trumps those concerns, but there’s definitely wiggle room for how that’s achieved- for instance a kind of honourable discharge with the accompanying no loss of benefits if you feel you have to leave because you won’t get vaccinated.
However, the fertile men argument is bollocks - you don’t get women pregnant by breathing the same air as them or leaving a trace on a surface.
cougar - sorry - should have made that clear "competence" in the legal sense
But your belligerence is startling
apologies for that. Its hard not to react to people not understanding the issues and being belligerent to me because they do not understand the issues
I will drop it now. I think the BMJ quotes show the objections well.
God, there’s some bollocks being spouted on here. If you work in healthcare wash your hands, put a mask on and get jabbed. It’s really not much to ask.
Before I’m accused of double standards, I’d like it to be compulsory in all work places. By all means be an anti vax moron, but do it somewhere where you’re not endangering me and my family.
your beef is about a contractual change?
No - its about undermining a major part of medical ethics and a reversal of centuries of medical ethical development
tjagain
Full Member
Having studied this, perhaps you could come up with a slightly less batshit example?
Read the big long quote from the BMJ
Yeah..... read it..... not a great article to be honest, and I don't see any analogies in there
I have to say I now appreciate it’s a more nuanced problem that it first appears after reading tjagains arguments.
Thank you
Once the issues are understood then you can make informed comments either side of the debate. without that understanding of the ethical considerations then you cannot.
Do I understand..... can I comment?
The issue you have with this approach, is that the NHS is already understaffed.
If we take your approach and say 5%* of the NHS workforce is forced to leave, then what happens the next time you need treatment?
Yet it didn't seem to be much of a concern when we told at least twice that number to piss off for the crime of being European. "I went to A&E and contracted Romanian!" said no-one ever.
@Andy_Sweet - but if you're vaccinated how are the unvaccinated a threat to you and your family exactly?
I will drop it now.
You've said that about six times now and you're still replying to people. (-:
No – its about undermining a major part of medical ethics and a reversal of centuries of medical ethical development
Aha. "We've always done it this way." Always a good reason to keep doing things.
False logic. You can still pass on COVID if you’re jabbed so not sure what the point of the policy is as it is not actually providing any additional protection to anyone other than those who choose not to be jabbed
Not true.
The viral load you receive from someone who is jabbed is the same as from someone who isn’t jabbed.
Also not true.
But ultimately the only person they [anti-vaxxers] are risking or hurting are themselves.
Imagine thinking you can participate in a debate when your understanding is so poor.
Well done for demonstrating the point that one of the larger problems with the whole wider debate is that the internet has enable everyone to have their say, even if they're talking complete nonsense.
Just picking my way through this thread.
Small point of order that wrankled...
all citizens have a duty to report a crime
No they don't.
There is absolutely no compunction at all, legally or morally.
As for the rest, it's no doubt complex and to see the benefits of one side of the argument isn't ignoring the other. Not sure I ascribe to the 'coercion' points.
Ethics cut both ways, and sometimes the rights of the individual have to give way to the rights of society.
There's no great ethical trump card (let alone a medical ethics one).
Not true.
Was true according to an actual expert on TV earlier today.
Also not true.
Was true according to an actual expert on TV earlier today.
magine thinking you can participate in a debate when your understanding is so poor.
Oh get over yourself man. I get my info from experts. I'm not making this shit up. There might be a problem of different experts saying different things and that is a problem as we don't know who to believe but the fact is there are experts that are saying these things.
Maybe its the case, like in alot of science, that we don't fully understand this and that there is different scientific opinion out there.
Anyway would love to understand why the infection rate is as high as it has been before vaccination when 70% of the population are double vaccinated. IF it was the case that vaccinations did reduce infection rates then why is the overall infection rate not significantly lower? Why is the data not impacted by the very high vaccination rate? Why is it that double vaccinated people are catching the virus from other double vaccinated people?
andrewreay
sorry - I thought we did have the duty to report a crime as a member of the public. I am fairly sure healthcare workers do under the codes of conduct but I stand corrected
Ok, I've read everything, I've thought about everything, I've enjoyed the argument, and I've ended up pretty much where I started:
Those working in contact with vulnerable people should have the jab. If they don't want it they should look for new work or be temporarily put on duties where they do not come into contact with patients or those working with patients.
We've had this at my workplace. I work with adults with learning disabilities, but many have other issues as well - respiratory problems, Downs Syndrome, diabetes, old age, etc - that leave them especially vulnerable. Like any right-thinking person in this position I got double jabbed and boosted at the first opportunity, as did nearly everyone else. A few casual staff decided they didn't want the jab and stopped taking shifts.
A friend I've known for years is a good guy, but a bit 'they're watching, you know?'. He refused the vaccine and left the place he'd worked for 10 years.
It's a real shame, the service users loved him and he knew his job well. Initially I couldn't understand why he couldn't be put on outside non-contact work (we have a big site, and there's always plenty to do) until this is over. I think the CEO - also a good guy - decided that he had to enforce this or others would ask for similar leniency. We're also encouraging all of our service users to get vaccinated - we rightly cannot compel those who are competent to make the decision themselves - and if there were unvaccinated staff it would undermine the position.
I sympathise, I really do. I think it's daft not to take up the vaccination, but it's up to each person. However, I do not think it is wrong to state "For this role you need to be vaccinated". Simple as that.
There might be a problem of different experts saying different things and that is a problem as we don’t know who to believe but the fact is there are experts that are saying these things.
If experts disagree then they should be talking to each other in order to come to a consensus before taking their findings to the great unwashed. If they aren't doing that then they aren't experts, they're simply opinionated gobshites like me and TJ.
Joking aside, "expert" is an easy word to throw around but actual experts are few and far between.
the end justifies the means?
Very clearly it does sometimes, depending on what the end is and what the means are. Evaluating this is the key issue here.
I sympathise, I really do. I think it’s daft not to take up the vaccination, but it’s up to each person.
Surely it's more than daft. It's potentially dangerous and could result in someone's death, couldn't it?
To avoid more people leaving the NHS wouldn’t it be smarter to bring out vaccine passports to get into pubs, clubs, cinemas etc., and maybe also a 1p income tax levy on vaccine refusers to pay for the extra healthcare burden they are creating.
That way you’d likely get the bulk of the NHS staff who have dodged the vaccine to reconsider without risking more leaving, but also get the rest of the population not in the NHS jabbed.
If experts disagree then they should be talking to each other in order to come to a consensus before taking their findings to the great unwashed.
I pasted a large quote from experts. Pollok in particular is a well known expert in medical ethics. I have read a lot of her stuff. well worth reading.
the debate is going on and I agree there is one but its complex and nuanced not simplistic as some folk here would like to see and the government have pushed on without listening to the debate among experts
Is the concern that it all goes a bit Black Mirror?
If the next pandemic results in widespread kidney failure would everyone be happy if forced to donate a kidney “for the greater good”. Whilst I was happy to get a vaccine, I might draw my own line at that point. For others I guess they’ve drawn a line at a different level.
I do have some sympathy with people who might feel forced into this choice and pointing a finger and shouting that they’re morons might not be productive. For many, I would say that the choice to leave a career, not just a job, isn’t really a choice at all.
the end justifies the means?
In this instance, in my opinion, yes.
@mudmucher - would you be prepared to extend that levy for overweight people, smokers, excessive alcohol drinkers, people who participate in DIY, sports..... and mountain bikers who can end up in A&E from time to time too?
the government have pushed on without listening to the debate among experts
the government seem to be experts at that.
Anyway would love to understand why the infection rate is as high as it has been before vaccination when 70% of the population are double vaccinated.
More people are mixing with more other people. Mask wearing is down markedly everywhere, though still higher in Scotland than in other parts
My SO has had three doses so far and employer still expects regular PCR tests. The vaccine doesn't stop you getting ill or passing covid on. So to enforce vaccination and have the resulting fallout...
But why expect the government to find out why there is hesitency, particualarly when it appears to be linked to certain features such as income/education/location/etc.
I pasted a large quote from experts. Pollok in particular is a well known expert in medical ethics. I have read a lot of her stuff. well worth reading.
the debate is going on and I agree there is one but its complex and nuanced not simplistic
This being the case, is it not reckless and irresponsible for "experts" to be publicly disagreeing in sight of non-experts who are by definition far less equipped to evaluate a conclusion? This is how we got Wakefield's MMR/autism horseshit. This is how we got brexit.
But why expect the government to find out why there is hesitency,
Why there is vaccine hesitancy is well documented. It's because we have a nation of cretins.
This being the case, is it not reckless and irresponsible for “experts” to be publicly disagreeing in sight of non-experts who are by definition far less equipped to evaluate a conclusion?
this is how debates in the medical world are done. there is no other way.
I'm well aware of how science works. That wasn't my point.
More people are mixing with more other people. Mask wearing is down markedly everywhere, though still higher in Scotland than in other parts
This of course makes complete sense, I'm just surprised. If the vaccinations are significantly effective in reducing infections and the infection rates have risen so high then given 70% of the population are double vaccinated, the majority of infections are amongst the double vaccinated. This certainly bears out in my personal experience of friends and work colleagues who are getting positive PCR tests left right and centre despite being double vaccinated, but the majority having no symptoms whatsoever. We're just crucibles for the virus.
The main thing is that the majority of severe disease, hospitalisations and deaths are amongst the unvaccinated so that should be the biggest reason for people to get the vaccine.