All frontline NHS to be double jabbed to keep a job

not sure I would normally have been so quick to go for a rushed out vaccination

Gnnn…

It’s not “rushed out,” it’s had an atypically huge amount of resource thrown at it.

The answer may seem bloody obvious to you but its a question not solveable by simplistic analysis. the moral, legal and ethical questions are serious

this is altering the entire legal and ethical framework under which healthcare workers operate and is allowing the state to coercivly medicate people

OK – I have made my point

I hope a few of you might realise that what seems on the surface a “no brainer” is actually a very complex moral and ethical maze

I find it astonishing how many of yo are simply prepared to watch this happen.

Because we believe it is for the greater good.

Like mask wearing, social distancing, working from home, lockdowns, all those other restrictions on our personal freedoms and choices we’ve had to endure the last 18 months.

Ignoring those rules had (theoretically at least) legal and personal consequences, as does not complying with this vaccine mandate. Exceptional times require exceptional efforts.

It’s perfectly fine if you feel differently.

(Though I’m somewhat wary of the potential political spin behind the timing of it, rather overshadowed the MPs second job thing for example.)

I wholeheartedly agree with what TJ just posted.
My early comments around the further un-attractiveness of the NHS as an employer are owing to this.

So many people wading in here who clearly have no idea about ethics or good management.

Like mask wearing, social distancing, working from home, lockdowns, all those other restrictions on our personal freedoms and choices we’ve had to endure the last 18 months.

Non of those things are remotely like coercive medication.

Non of those things are remotely like coercive medication.

Fine, let them refuse the jab and deal with the consequences. The only non-medical reason not to have the jab is because you have very flawed judgement, and I’m not sure I want someone in that position looking after me.

@tjagain – absolutely spot on.

Because we believe it is for the greater good.

the end justifies the means?

Personally speaking I don’t want coercive vaccination of the population as a whole. I think that’s a dangerous path that we should be very very shady about starting down. I’d much rather engage and convince people and from immunisation perspective we don’t need 100% of folks vaccinated anyway.

I do however think that vaccinating people as a requirement to do a particular role is perfectly acceptable position to take.

TJ, you can use all the emotive language you like. Morals, ethics, “coercion” really?! Come on.
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, and you’re an anti-vaxer, then **** off to remote telesales or the dole or something because you’re at risk of causing more harm than good. Where are your ethics when you’ve just infected someone who’s then died?

I understand your Scargillism and would normally agree with you, but I have no sympathy here. Zero damns given, if we can seemingly take the hit of “sending back where they came from” all the European workers, then the plague rats can **** right off after them. Too bad.

It’s not a “complex maze,” it’s really really easy. Get your injections or, as they say in Scotland, git tae ****. Vaccine deniers and their apologists have no place in the health service and of all people TJ I expected better of you.

Because, why? On principle? What’s the actual objection here? Someone said earlier, “people don’t like being told what to do” and that’s what it boils down to isn’t it. Christ, this is the cycle helmet argument all over again isn’t it. But the uncomfortable reality is that a mature society has rules. Getting in a car, buckle up a seatbelt. Anyone whining about the infringement on their civil liberties because they’re being “coerced” to wear pants when out in public?

We’ve been successfully vaccinating people for well over two centuries and this entire narrative is crackpottery of the highest order. Anyone anti-vaccinations needs to grow the hell up, go join the Flat Earth Society or something.

There is a moral and ethical dimension that you are not seeing here cougar that I have tried to explain

This alters the entire ethical framework under which healthcare operates

all of the professional and regulatory bodies are extremely concerned about this and many practitioners very unhappy even the pro vax ones like me

Have a read of this for example

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1684

So many people wading in here who clearly have no idea about ethics or good management.

People are dying because other people are stubborn.

Sorry, what was your point again?

Personally speaking I don’t want coercive vaccination of the population as a whole. I think that’s a dangerous path that we should be very very shady about starting down.

I agree. But that’s not what’s happening, is it.

On a building site you’d be expected to wear a hard hat. In a clinical environment you’re similarly expected to be clean. Don’t want to be vaccinated (and again, as a healthcare professional, why wouldn’t you?) then hazmat suit #3 is over there.

Cougar – read the BMJ link above and I have sent you a pm about gillick competence

Because, why?

Because any government probably shouldn’t be forcing anyone into having medical treatment against their wishes.

For example:

We’ve worked out that one the major issues facing our planet, and the survival of humans is overpopulation, so we’re going to start to forcibly sterilise men between the ages of 18-40. Line up here….

Plenty of choice really. Jab or another job. No issues.
No one is , for example, a care or education job complains about the DBS system. It goes with the job.
Personally I would make the jab mandatory for all . Fail to have and and declined health care.
Personal choice has too many problems with our over populated world.

Nicely put nickc

My early comments around the further un-attractiveness of the NHS as an employer are owing to this.

So many people wading in here who clearly have no idea about ethics or good management.

Personally If I’d had to witness unprecedented numbers of deaths in my colleagues and stakeholders on a daily basis my idea of “good management” would be weeding out the morons from my workplace and getting the rest of us vaccinated.

Don’t want to be vaccinated (and again, as a healthcare professional, why wouldn’t you?)

From a purely personal perspective and practical level from what I’ve seen. I think it’s because a whole bunch of folks in healthcare roles that aren’t patient facing  just don’t think the COVID is that dangerous to them personally, and taking a gamble, they’re probably going to be correct 99 times out of a hundred. If this was an Ebola pandemic (or something equally terminal) I’m pretty sure the treatment uptake wouldn’t be a discussion point.

Because any government probably shouldn’t be forcing anyone into having medical treatment against their wishes.

But they aren’t doing that, no-one is being forced to do anything. 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? And if you feel that the answer to that is “yes” then change jobs.

Yes they are cougar – they are being coerced under threat of losing their livelihood and being put into penury as a result. No benefits for 6 wks, no ability to return to healthcare ever.

to be 100% clear I think anyone refusing the jag is off their head

However that does not blind me to the serious questions this raises and being coerced into taking medications is changing the whole legal and ethical structure under which healthcare works

Its not like wearing a hard hat on a building site. this is an invasive medical treatment with ( rare but serious) side effects

this is not a question that can be solved by simplistic analysis

Fine, let them refuse the jab and deal with the consequences. The only non-medical reason not to have the jab is because you have very flawed judgement, and I’m not sure I want someone in that position looking after me.

+1

TJ – take a look at the ‘hill’ you’ve decided it’s worth dying for

As I’ve said before, when I’ve worked in dodgy countries I’ve been to the GP and had the relevant jabs (paid for by work). Yes I had a choice, go get another job.

But what’s the issue with having a vaccine to protect me/others – other than selfishness and/or stupidity?

nickc
Full Member

For example:

We’ve worked out that one the major issues facing our planet, and the survival of humans is overpopulation, so we’re going to start to forcibly sterilise men between the ages of 18-40. Line up here….

tjagain
Full Member
Nicely put nickc

Jesus christ….. really?!?
Like most on here, I understand what you are saying TJ….. 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

But what’s the issue with having a vaccine to protect me/others – other than selfishness and/or stupidity,

attention seeking? portraying an internet persona that makes you feel special?

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?

Nope, personally I’m cool with making it a requirement of that particular job.

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 **** 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.