Mandatory Jabs for NHS workers

Andy_W said:
You don't even have a point, you just talk in hypothetical and strawman arguments against others, without offering any insight to what you think will happen.

My point is based on 95% of north east healthcare workers choosing to be vaccinated (to date) which they have, that's my base, and you've offered zero to counter that.
My point is "more patient facing nurses and doctors" will get vaxxed than "healtchare workers", and you've offered zero to counter that.
My point is some of those unvaccinated nurses will have bene off sick, pregnant or had other reasonable health reasons, and hence will not be "fired", you've offered zero to counter this.
My point is, they're not faced with "the sack", they will likely get moved to non patient facing roles, which you've not countered.
My point is, of those remaining few left, far more will just choose to have the vaccine, rather than give up on nursing, which you've not countered.
My point is, any new nurses will have to accept to be vaccinated before they even get their foot in the door.



Do you think that's going to happen? My bet is <1% of over 50's nurses (call that 0.5% of all nurses) get "sacked".

What's your number? Lets see who is closest in April?
Click to expand...
You are having a mare here Andy.

95% of NHS workers in the north east have been vaccinated, not frontline NHS workers. Tees, Esk And Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust have a vaccination rate for frontline workers of 86.7% as of August this year (thats a single vaccination)
More patient facing nurses and doctors will get vaxxed than healthcare workers. Not according to the ONS. See figure above.
They will get moved to non patient facing roles. Cool that's a great use for a thoracic surgeons time. Also no where are the government saying this, it's an assumption.
Those left will choose to have the vaccination. Really, where's the evidence of that? Another Andy assumption?
New nurses will have to accept the vaccination. I made that point ages ago and have no problem with it.

You don't even have a point just talk in hypothetical strawman arguments without offerring any insight to what you think will happen. This is my personal favourite. I have said multiple times what I think will happen. The government won't enact the legislation and if they do the NHS will collapse.

As for hypotheticals, are you serious? You made one assumption after another and framed an argument around that. The assumptions were miles of the mark, and I talk about hypotheticals? I have done no such thing.

Nurses over 50 getting sacked? What? I don't think any will get sacked, I have already said this multiple times, the government won't enacted this any more than they were ever going to enact vaccine passports for nightclubs.

You are tying yourself in knots to support your original argument and you don't have to. It was erronous based on a poor news article. Let it go.
 
r00fie1 said:
This reply concerns your opinion Andy - its not intended to be personal.

You may see my later post about the particular policies surrounded my current work for the NHS in the community.
The NHS is not just Hospitals.
Its more complicated than that.

As for the Armed Forces - there is no comparison.
They dont "have to go and bomb people" - war and peacekeeping is not throwing other peoples chilfden on a funeral pyre - in uniform.
Its akin to telling Armed Forces they should expect to die.

I wouldnt suggest you say that to a Soldier, Sailor or Crab to their faces.

The Government is victim blaming to divert from its monstrous incompetent profit-ripping mismanagement of this whole pandemic.
That is the real cancer at the core of this fiasco.

At the moment our country is becoming the unique British version of the Gulag Archipelago for the many, for the benefit of the powerful few.
Its parallels with authoritarian regimes - within living memory - is frightening and must be resisted.
Click to expand...
I was about to get on to this Roofie, thanks for saving me the bother.
 
BoroMart said:
yes, less personal.

I am being slightly facetious in my 'send them to plague island comments', but my attitude is that if you want to take from our society, you should be fully prepared to do your bit and protect it. In WW2 in France their were people who were prepared to risk their lives and take up arms to protect their country, resistance. There were also people who helped the germans and had an "I'm alright Jacques" attitude, undermining the resistance by grassing them up.

I view the Libertarian attitude of I'll refuse to get the vaccine because it's my body, as the same as those collaborators, failing to protect the country, in fact ensuring that there is a continued negative effect on the country.
Click to expand...
Of course you were Mart, and that's fine. I disagree, and was being equally facetious, but more to the point of the thread, the NHS will collapse if the government do this, which I have repeatedly said they wont, and nor should they.

The comparison is a really bad one BTW, doctors and nurses put their lives on the line in a very real way, treating patients with a deadly disease, without adequate PPE. To compare them to german collaborators is really bad! I would think about an edit there.
 
Laughing said:
Yes that is correct. It wanes over time. 3 Months after the jab, protection against infection and transmission it begins to tend to zero. Vaccinations are limited in stopping the transmission of the virus and become more limited over time.
Click to expand...

That post is quite deceptive. After 3 months, most people are still on over 90% protection, after the second dose, and each subsequent dose is expected to give higher protection than the last, and last much longer (less susceptible to waning).
 
Laughing said:
You are having a mare here Andy.

95% of NHS workers in the north east have been vaccinated, not frontline NHS workers. Tees, Esk And Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust have a vaccination rate for frontline workers of 86.7% as of August this year (thats a single vaccination)
More patient facing nurses and doctors will get vaxxed than healthcare workers. Not according to the ONS. See figure above.
They will get moved to non patient facing roles. Cool that's a great use for a thoracic surgeons time. Also no where are the government saying this, it's an assumption.
Those left will choose to have the vaccination. Really, where's the evidence of that? Another Andy assumption?
New nurses will have to accept the vaccination. I made that point ages ago and have no problem with it.

You don't even have a point just talk in hypothetical strawman arguments without offerring any insight to what you think will happen. This is my personal favourite. I have said multiple times what I think will happen. The government won't enact the legislation and if they do the NHS will collapse.
Click to expand...
How so?

TEWV doesn't cover James Cook, North Tees etc, their data is blank on that (old) spreadsheet.
But your chart does prove doctors and nurses are 4% and 6% more likely to start the vaccines over support staff (which was one of my other points (Andy assumptions, as you call it)
Have many thoracic surgeons not been vaccinated? How many? I imagine thoracic surgeons would be less busy, or have an easier time with less covid.
Yes, most of the remaining nurses/ doctors will chose to get vaccinated, that is an assumption, do you think more will chose to leave than get vaccinated? I'll not even drop to your level and go strawman on that, and assume you would think that, as you probably don't.

Do you actually think the NHS will "collapse", due to this? Or do you think it may struggle an additional percentage more? What percentage?
Do you think more or less people will die as a result of this? Bare in mind there's probably been a risk assessment done on this, by people who know more than you or I.

They probably won't need to enact it, that's another point, more than enough will come forward and get it anyway in the meantime, than otherwise would.

By then it will be well and truly the endemic phase anyway, anyone that's not been vaccinated by then will almost certainly have been exposed numerous times.

It's a tactic to get the remaining stragglers to come forward, or at least speak to someone who knows better about it.
 
r00fie1 said:
This reply concerns your opinion Andy - its not intended to be personal.

You may see my later post about the particular policies surrounded my current work for the NHS in the community.
The NHS is not just Hospitals.
Its more complicated than that.

As for the Armed Forces - there is no comparison.
They dont "have to go and bomb people" - war and peacekeeping is not throwing other peoples chilfden on a funeral pyre - in uniform.
Its akin to telling Armed Forces they should expect to die.

I wouldnt suggest you say that to a Soldier, Sailor or Crab to their faces.

The Government is victim blaming to divert from its monstrous incompetent profit-ripping mismanagement of this whole pandemic.
That is the real cancer at the core of this fiasco.

At the moment our country is becoming the unique British version of the Gulag Archipelago for the many, for the benefit of the powerful few.
Its parallels with authoritarian regimes - within living memory - is frightening and must be resisted.
Click to expand...
I try not to take anything personal, especially from people I don't know :)

Of course the NHS do all, I'm thinking more in line with the hospitals, those on the Covid wards, working near the covid wards, using the same hospital, facilities etc. To be honest I think care homes are an even higher priority, but other areas with lower risk, a lesser priority, so a vaccine appropriate to risk of workplace would be more appropriate to most.

For me personally, I'd just do everyone (all adults, without valid medical reasons), as I think the benefit is worth the cost, but I appreciate I'm on the far end of the spectrum with that!

Armed forces was the first thing to come into my head, but the armed forces do have to accept vaccinations, and do have to accept to bomb people (or support in a major capacity), and they're in contract to do that. Not doing it can mean military prison. I've literally been and done it (major support roles in wars), and took anthrax prevention to do it, so I'm not asking others to do what I haven't gone far further than myself.

The government are victim blaming, certainly, and their response has been ridiculous, but I see this as a good move, albeit too late.

I don't see this as authoritarian, albeit it is not ideal, it's aimed at reducing risk, which it is proven to do.
 
In the USA, the news was that 10000 NYPD staff were unvaccinated and would lose their jobs when mandatory vaccination was implemented. Turns out only 34 were forced onto unpaid leave.

Will be similar in the UK.

my workplace has mandated double vaccination. I work in O&G in a location miles away from the nearest hospital. Common sense. I don’t want it again. I also want like minded folk around me.
 
Laughing said:
The comparison is a really bad one BTW, doctors and nurses put their lives on the line in a very real way, treating patients with a deadly disease, without adequate PPE. To compare them to german collaborators is really bad! I would think about an edit there.
Click to expand...
Unvaccinated people, including medical people, cost lives. So the comparison is apt.

There is a strong argument that any doctors who refuse the jab and attempt to damage the reputation of the vaccine are breaking the Hippocratic oath, through malfeasance. Putting patients at unnecessary risk, is malfeasance
 
Last edited:
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
In the USA, the news was that 10000 NYPD staff were unvaccinated and would lose their jobs when mandatory vaccination was implemented. Turns out only 34 were forced onto unpaid leave.

Will be similar in the UK.

my workplace has mandated double vaccination. I work in O&G in a location miles away from the nearest hospital. Common sense. I don’t want it again. I also want like minded folk around me.
Click to expand...
I would expect healthcare staff to be more willing than USA cops too, although I'm sure some others on here will be along to say I'm wrong to assume that, but not say why it would be the opposite.

But as for the cops, that's only 0.3% of the unvaccinated staff going on unpaid leave, so what's that, maybe 0.03% of the total (another assumption). No great loss there, but loads gained.

The bit in bold is quite important I think, to other staff, and to the patients already filled with mass worry.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
How so?

TEWV doesn't cover James Cook, North Tees etc, their data is blank on that (old) spreadsheet.
But your chart does prove doctors and nurses are 4% and 6% more likely to start the vaccines over support staff (which was one of my other points (Andy assumptions, as you call it)
Have many thoracic surgeons not been vaccinated? How many? I imagine thoracic surgeons would be less busy, or have an easier time with less covid.
Yes, most of the remaining nurses/ doctors will chose to get vaccinated, that is an assumption, do you think more will chose to leave than get vaccinated? I'll not even drop to your level and go strawman on that, and assume you would think that, as you probably don't.

Do you actually think the NHS will "collapse", due to this? Or do you think it may struggle an additional percentage more? What percentage?
Do you think more or less people will die as a result of this? Bare in mind there's probably been a risk assessment done on this, by people who know more than you or I.

They probably won't need to enact it, that's another point, more than enough will come forward and get it anyway in the meantime, than otherwise would.

By then it will be well and truly the endemic phase anyway, anyone that's not been vaccinated by then will almost certainly have been exposed numerous times.

It's a tactic to get the remaining stragglers to come forward, or at least speak to someone who knows better about it.
Click to expand...
I am back for a bit, in a crappy zoom meeting.

Ignoring your first paragraph Andy, as you were plain old wrong with your numbers.

On the NHS, I think it is already collapsing, it avoids hitting the news by increasing backlog and waiting times, so I guess you would have to define collapse versus not fit for purpose.

I really don't know how many will come forward for vaccine based on the threat of losing their job, but I would question the wisdom of threatening them in the first place.. They won't not enact it because they don't have to. They wont enact it because it will be political suicide, and rightly so.
 
BoroMart said:
Unvaccinated people, including medical people, cost lives. So the comparison is apt.

There is a strong argument that any doctors who refuse the jab and attempt to damage the reputation of the vaccine are breaking the Hippocratic oath, through malfeasance. Putting patients at unnecessary risk, is malfeasance
Click to expand...
Your first point I don't agree with, I think it's an awful comparison. If you are comfortable with that, fine. I am not.

Your second point has a few things wrong with it. The Hippocratic oath is ceremonial only in the medical profession, but I take you point. But let's assume that it was a legal requirement for a doctor to take that oath you are still wrong. It never mentions "do no harm", which I assume is the part you were referring to? It does say in the modern version to prevent disease as prevention is better than cure, which is as close as you can get to what you are implying.

Malfeasance is just plain wrong never mind a stretch. It means intentional conduct that is unlawful.

You do like your extreme examples.
 
Andy_W said:
That post is quite deceptive. After 3 months, most people are still on over 90% protection, after the second dose, and each subsequent dose is expected to give higher protection than the last, and last much longer (less susceptible to waning).
Click to expand...
That is absolutely correct when talking about protection from hospitalization or death. I was referring specifically to the vaccines efficiency in stopping infection and transmission and it is never 90% effective.
 
Laughing said:
It never mentions "do no harm", which I assume is the part you were referring to?
Click to expand...
nope

Laughing said:
Malfeasance is just plain wrong never mind a stretch. It means intentional conduct that is unlawful.
Click to expand...
mallfeasance - if someone has decided they won't get vaccinated, knowing full well that they are more likely to carry covid and more likely to infect patients, then yes that is an intentional act, or conduct. Now proving it unlawful might be damned hard, but that doesn't make it any less malfeasant.

Not sure why you think this is an extreme example, it's the reality of what we are talking about.
 
Laughing said:
I am back for a bit, in a crappy zoom meeting.

Ignoring your first paragraph Andy, as you were plain old wrong with your numbers.

On the NHS, I think it is already collapsing, it avoids hitting the news by increasing backlog and waiting times, so I guess you would have to define collapse versus not fit for purpose.

I really don't know how many will come forward for vaccine based on the threat of losing their job, but I would question the wisdom of threatening them in the first place.. They won't not enact it because they don't have to. They wont enact it because it will be political suicide, and rightly so.
Click to expand...
Ignore what you like, but you quoted TEWS (which I wasn't), based on 10 week old data, what do you think is correct about that?

I was on about those treating covid patients, or working in the same vicinity, and walking through canteens in the same hospitals etc. I doubt the article was wrong, as they mention 116k remain to have any vaccination nationwide, which is only 8% nationwide (and we know the north east is better than most places).

The NHS came closest to collapsing in the last covid wave, because people were being infected in public and in hospital. We've largely got to the endemic phase in public, but there's still a load of vulnerable people in hospital, who need all the help they can get (avoiding the virus, vaccinated or not). Having more vulnerable people with covid, will do the NHS or it's patients no favours.

The NHS is also on the verge of collapse largely due to the exit of loads of nurses (brexit), and under funding/ poor treatment by the Tories, which you don't seem to want to argue against as much as you are against this now, for a tiny minority who will leave or "get sacked" because of this.

It's not a threat, it's being pushed in the direction of making the best choice, for them, even if the don't realise it's better for their patients. Like I've said the risk analysis for any healthcare workers or anyone of average healthcare worker age (without medical reason) shows they're better off vaccinated, for themselves, and others. They still have a choice, either try and protect themselves and patients or don't. Both can have consequences, everything does.
 
BoroMart said:
nope


mallfeasance - if someone has decided they won't get vaccinated, knowing full well that they are more likely to carry covid and more likely to infect patients, then yes that is an intentional act, or conduct. Now proving it unlawful might be damned hard, but that doesn't make it any less malfeasant.

Not sure why you think this is an extreme example, it's the reality of what we are talking about.
Click to expand...
To your nope, what part of the oath were you referring to?

You are wrong on maleficence, it's not illegal not to get vaccinated. You might want it to be a legal requirement, but it isnt.
 
Laughing said:
That is absolutely correct when talking about protection from hospitalization or death. I was referring specifically to the vaccines efficiency in stopping infection and transmission and it is never 90% effective.
Click to expand...
So, let me get this straight, you accept that risk reduces in two areas, but not the other two? :rolleyes:

Someone recovering faster, or not getting sick in the first place is by far going to be less risk (less infection, less viral load, for a less duration). Or do you think they're going to be more risk?

Never mind the vaccinated nurses probably won't even get sick from covid, and not need time off, long covid etc, compared to the unvaccinated. Who is covering the unvaccinated nurses time off sick?
 
Andy_W said:
Ignore what you like, but you quoted TEWS (which I wasn't), based on 10 week old data, what do you think is correct about that?

I was on about those treating covid patients, or working in the same vicinity, and walking through canteens in the same hospitals etc. I doubt the article was wrong, as they mention 116k remain to have any vaccination nationwide, which is only 8% nationwide (and we know the north east is better than most places).

The NHS came closest to collapsing in the last covid wave, because people were being infected in public and in hospital. We've largely got to the endemic phase in public, but there's still a load of vulnerable people in hospital, who need all the help they can get (avoiding the virus, vaccinated or not). Having more vulnerable people with covid, will do the NHS or it's patients no favours.

The NHS is also on the verge of collapse largely due to the exit of loads of nurses (brexit), and under funding/ poor treatment by the Tories, which you don't seem to want to argue against as much as you are against this now, for a tiny minority who will leave or "get sacked" because of this.

It's not a threat, it's being pushed in the direction of making the best choice, for them, even if the don't realise it's better for their patients. Like I've said the risk analysis for any healthcare workers or anyone of average healthcare worker age (without medical reason) shows they're better off vaccinated, for themselves, and others. They still have a choice, either try and protect themselves and patients or don't. Both can have consequences, everything does.
Click to expand...
Andy, provide the data or stop complaining about mine being out of date.

The NHS has been collapsing for a decade and appears functional by extending waiting lists. Ignoring peoples health problems isn't a functioning NHS, far from it. It is and has been collapsing and failing in its intended function. Brexit had an impact on the NHS, absolutely. Why you would think I wouldn't argue that is beyond me. 22,000 staff left as a direct result of brexit. More will have to leave the service if the government go ahead with this ridiculous legislation.

You say its not a threat.. Ya OK, it is a threat and a clear one, it has no ambiguity.
 
Andy_W said:
So, let me get this straight, you accept that risk reduces in two areas, but not the other two? :rolleyes:

Someone recovering faster, or not getting sick in the first place is by far going to be less risk (less infection, less viral load, for a less duration). Or do you think they're going to be more risk?
Click to expand...
What? let me re-read that. Nope that's not what I said. The protection against hospitalization and death are much longer lasting than infection and transmission.

What I said is that after 3 months the slightly increased protection against infection and transmission begins to tend to zero. The 90% efficacy has nothing to do with what I said and refers only to hospitalization and death.

The protection on average from contagion and transmission 28% to 35%, if I recall the figures correctly, isnt massive to begin with and quickly tends to zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top