Why are most of Boro players not being vaccinated

Caesium137 said:
Maybe, but it could be interpreted in wording already in their?

As in ensure they do everything to stay fit and healthy, comply with all club medical advice etc?
Click to expand...
This is a useful article which touches on wording . ‘ Reasonable ‘ requests .

Its noteworthy that it’s dated back in January , thus legal teams will have crawled all over wording by now

www.personneltoday.com

No jab, no job? Six Covid vaccination questions for HR

Last week, the owner of Pimlico Plumbers said he wouldn't offer a job to anyone who hasn't been vaccinated. Given that the general working population
www.personneltoday.com www.personneltoday.com
 
Last edited:
Caesium137 said:
Maybe, but it could be interpreted in wording already in their?

As in ensure they do everything to stay fit and healthy, comply with all club medical advice etc?
Click to expand...
Yes possibly, good point, how easy that would be to prove if the legality of it versus taking the vaccine ended up being disputed in court though?
 
Borobarmy said:
I

There are some substantial companies who are incorporating such measures . I’m not sure how many are British but I rather suspect this measure is being scrutinised by legal bodies both in realms of unions and corporations . Profound I know but if it can be done it soon will .
Click to expand...
I can't imagine a scenario where inserting a clause into a contract without the agreement of both parties could ever be valid. It would just null and void the existing contract.
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
Yes possibly, good point, how easy that would be to prove if the legality of it versus taking the vaccine ended up being disputed in court though?
Click to expand...
Yep, but I assume they are expected to have medical things done to their bodies that are well outside of a normal workplace contract for a non-sports person and there will be some wording around this in their contracts. Maybe not around vaccinations etc. though.

How many sportsmen have we heard of having pain killing or anti-inflammatory injections in knees etc?

If I was off work sick and my employer said we want to send a doctor round to your house so we can inject something in to you so we can get a few hours of work out of you I'd be against that!
 
Very disappointing if true.

Footballers are role models for many, whether they like it or not.

Maybe it is another instance of footballers thinking they are above ‘normal’ requirements.
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
This is an issue across all levels of the game not just Boro players. Apart from Premier League & some Championship clubs I would doubt many players are millionaires. Haydn Coulson will certainly not be one.

A dig at cherry picking figures from the Guardian but then you cut and paste figures yourself with no explanation of where they are from or the validity of them other than a reference to "some tool". (Figures for a 20 year old, what about a 30 year old?)

I don't understand the point you are making wrt to the "something" you asked your GP about - what ever it was he described it as a less than 1 in 2000 risk - great it's very low risk, what is the relevance of that to whether someone should get a Covid vaccine?

What answer would your GP have given if asked if he thought young footballers should get the vaccine or not - I think I know his answer.

The risk of being affected by blood clots from the vaccine was described as being the same as taking a long haul flight. I bet not many players are choosing not to fly long haul (those that can afford to) just because there is a slight risk of developing a clot.
Click to expand...
digital.nhs.uk

Coronavirus (COVID-19) risk assessment - NHS Digital

QCovid® is a coronavirus (COVID-19) risk prediction model, created by the University of Oxford, which we're using to support the NHS coronavirus response. COVID 19 population risk assessment calculator. qflow NHS
digital.nhs.uk digital.nhs.uk

sorry I assumed people knew about this because I found about it from this board. I just used this tool to get those figures.

my point is he described a less 1 in 2000 risk of getting cancer to me as something not to worry about. And the tool I used suggested the risk of death to a 20 year old as one in a million and hospitalisation of 1 In 35 thousand. My point being that it’s an entirely acceptable risk for the individual.

it’s not comparable to taking a flight on holiday because that’s something they want to do and not to do so would directly inconvenience them. I think those kind of comparisons are quite useless really. Any comparison is. You need to prove to them that they are personally in danger and the fact is they are not.

edit: and fortunately you need not be a millionaire to have private medical insurance. The point was they have more money than the average guy and don’t rely on the nhs “millionaires” a bit of a throwaway remark.
you managed to reply to me there without making any comment on those numbers showing risk to a 20 year old but a lot about the minutia of my post!
 
FabioPorkpie said:
This myth needs countering.
It is, in the whole, thankfully, far less of a risk to young people.
But nearly 46 thousand 0-17 yr olds in the US have been hospitalised with it so far.
The current 7 day average for admissions (0-17 yr olds) is 212 per day.

Those are far from insignificant numbers.
AND, we do not yet know the long term impact or complications from covid.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1424138544600125442
Click to expand...
Can you express these numbers as percentage of the 0-17 population in the USA please
 
ThirdLeg said:
Can you express these numbers as percentage of the 0-17 population in the USA please
Click to expand...

It’s also a disingenuous argument.
Surely if you were that interested. the more relevant percentage would be of those who have contracted SARS COV2?

It’s an argument the anti-vaxxers and anti-science con artists of the likes of the GBD crowd, HARR, PCR claims, PANDA etc have tried to make from the start, to downplay it.

‘That’s only 0.01 % of the population ……’

Why do you want to illustrate the percentage of the total population, rather than of those who have actually been infected?

( I acknowledge that it is, of course, also impossible to know the true number of those who have been infected because many cases, particularly in the young, will go completely undetected.)
 
Clubs should educate the players and leave the decision up to the individuals.

The contact argument is pointless, most work contracts have multiple clauses that are unenforceable in law, non compete clause is a good example of this.

You cannot reduce salary based on a personal choice, you could, of course, give SSP if a footballer catches covid, assuming there is no full pay clause.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Do it yourself if you are that interested.
The point stands, no matter which way you try to paint it.
Click to expand...
I think using stats from a much larger population within a discussion of a UK
issue could be misleading. There are around 75 million 0-17 year olds in the USA.

Anyway it’s not the hill I wish to die on. As I said I’m my post I think the football players should be vaccinated. But I understand why they won’t and actually think it’s very reasonable on a personal level.
boycott them if it irks you so. Be outraged in a way that is personally costly, as opposed to calling them names online.

Or make up some chants:

you jab dodger, you jab dodger ( fat bar steward)

his interests are his own, his interests are his owwwwn. Djeddd Spence, he’s unconcerned with the whole.

Jonny howson, he’s been jabbed, he’s been jabbed, he’s been jabbed. Jonny howson he’s been jabbed, so. we. like. him

anyone got any ideas
 
Last edited:
FabioPorkpie said:
It’s also a disingenuous argument.
Surely if you were that interested. the more relevant percentage would be of those who have contracted SARS COV2?

It’s an argument the anti-vaxxers and anti-science con artists of the likes of the GBD crowd, HARR, PCR claims, PANDA etc have tried to make from the start, to downplay it.

‘That’s only 0.01 % of the population ……’

Why do you want to illustrate the percentage of the total population, rather than of those who have actually been infected?

( I acknowledge that it is, of course, also impossible to know the true number of those who have been infected because many cases, particularly in the young, will go completely undetected.)
Click to expand...
I’m not that bothered to be honest. It’s a thread about footballers not getting it and I provided my view on the subject. When there’s a thread about 0-17 year olds and I have generated some thoughts about it I’ll make a more informed comment, if I am capable of such a thing
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
The only long terms effects we know from the vaccines is from the trials and the relatively short period of time they've been in use - that's a fact.

I said I understood their view, which is contrary to my own, it doesn't mean I agree with it - the two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
There won’t be any long term effects that develop months later. All reactions occur by the 6-8 week mark at the latest. They are still monitoring the trial participants in phase 4 of the vaccine trials as they continue to monitor. The scientists know the ingredients are and that they have been used before successfull.

if I were a player I’d be more concerned of COVID ruining my lung function and damaging my heart Fibres.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
I understand that, the point I'm making is the is an unknown to this situation and only time will prove whether there are any unknown effects.
Click to expand...
You still seem to be suggesting that with the passage of time, there might be unknown side effects that only become apparent later. The point I'm making is that there's no evidentiary basis for such a view.

As the article I linked to earlier states,
there's no biological mechanism for adverse effects to arise some years later. Time cannot cause something to produce effects, that isn't actually there any more.

(Unless of course, you apply the principles of homeopathy, where even the "memory" of a substance is supposed to have an effect).
 
ThirdLeg said:
I’m not that bothered to be honest. It’s a thread about footballers not getting it and I provided my view on the subject. When there’s a thread about 0-17 year olds and I have generated some thoughts about it I’ll make a more informed comment, if I am capable of such a thing
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
I was responding to a statement you made though, regarding it not being a big deal for young people.
It actually can be.
 
Liamo said:
You still seem to be suggesting that with the passage of time, there might be unknown side effects that only become apparent later. The point I'm making is that there's no evidentiary basis for such a view.

As the article I linked to earlier states,
there's no biological mechanism for adverse effects to arise some years later. Time cannot cause something to produce effects, that isn't actually there any more.

(Unless of course, you apply the principles of homeopathy, where even the "memory" of a substance is supposed to have an effect).
Click to expand...
That Mallone fella who falsely claimes to have invented the mRNA vaccine is claiming they can cause ADE, without there being any way it is possible. Mallone is double vaccinated (like most of those antivax grifters)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top