Covid Vaccination ID
#11
(02-15-2021, 09:45 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 09:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 08:51 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 08:30 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 06:43 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote: Vaccines don’t prevent transmission so even having the vaccine still leaves people at risk.

Dekka you sound like a maniac. I know a number of people who are wary of the vaccine and aren’t covid deniers. My god look at you lumping people in with a few covid denying loons. You literally sound bonkers. The number of ‘covid deniers’ is tiny. There’s plenty who don’t want the vaccine. To call them all covid deniers is insane. If that’s you being polite, I dread to think what you’d be like being impolite!

And what would you do with the significant number of health staff who don’t want it? Hold them down and force them? Sack them? Jesus Christ.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-n...ame-staff/

There’s significant numbers who don’t want it dekka. Many are weighing up the risks of covid with the risks of the vaccine (fertility, long term effects, short term reactions published by the government). I hate to tell you but the younger the age group, the more will refuse it. It will be a reasonable percentage (see article I have linked for an idea of working age staff in the health sector). An absolute tiny tiny fraction of these are ‘covid deniers’.

That was a list of usual suspects who refuse to have the vaccination. I didn’t say they were all Covid deniers it was meant as a list. I hate to tell you but many share my opinion that if you work in the care industry and refuse to have the jab that’s fine just don’t work in the sector. Including well known journalist and ‘maniac’ Shelagh Fogarty on LBC. There is nothing imo controversial or mad about suggesting people who care for others should take the vaccine.

We don’t actually know if the vaccine can help reduce the chances of spreading the virus but there are studies that suggest it may do. If it is proven without doubt then those refusing will put others at needless risk. There will be some who may not be able to have it due to medical reasons but they will be in a very small minority. This is the NHS information on side effects NHS information   This is a BBC report (I know you would have missed it as it wasn’t on Sky Sports Wink ) Fertility Fertility Concerns

Vaccine and the reduction of the virus

You’re backtracking and you know it. You literally referred to the health sector and to children being put at risk because of covid denying libertarians. Read what you wrote again. A tiny tiny percentage of those who don’t want the vaccine are covid deniers (especially in the health sector!). So what do you suggest for those in the health sector who don’t want the vaccine? Force them? Sack them? 

The fact that many share this opinion is irrelevant. I would ask them the same question if they share your opinion. There are significant numbers in the health sector who don’t want it. You say don’t work in the health sector if that’s the case? I ask again, what would you suggest because sacking those amounts is quite absurd. Just look at the stats in Leicester for gods sake! So what do you suggest?

As for the second point, correct, we don’t know. So it’s likely that to a degree at least, it can still be transmitted anyway. The vaccine isn’t even 100% effective so highly unlikely it can it stop 100% transmission.

When significant amounts of people of younger ages refuse the vaccine, if you refer to these as covid deniers, you will be wrong for virtually all of them. You will be incorrectly lumpingvthem in with an extreme if you choose to do that. There are very very few covid deniers. There are significant numbers who don’t want the vaccine.

So back to the health sector, look at the proportion who don’t want it. What’s your suggestion?

Nope I’m not backtracking whatsoever. It was a list of the types of people who say they won’t have the vaccine. Those that are Covid deniers are one, then those obsessed with their liberty but not really bothered about others are another, then those that read crap on social media, then there are those who are sceptical / worried to the point of paranoia.

The studies have data to support initial findings that it can help reduce the spread of infection what have those who refuse to take the injection have as a reason for not taking it? Also just because something may not be 100% effective doesn’t mean you don’t try to reduce the risk by having as many people have the vaccine as possible. 

I see no problem insisting that someone in health and care has the vaccine. Just like many industries have injections for other jobs, or a DBS for working with children etc. I have my doubts it will happen but if it does get proven that it helps reduce infection between people without doubt I think those refusing should declare to those they are caring for that they haven’t had the vaccine so they can make an informed choice if they wish for them to treat them. Liberty works both ways.

You are back tracking. You listed them as a group and called them idiots and plonkers, and said that was polite! You threw in all those who don’t want the vaccine with the extremes. The truth is people weigh up their choice and many come to a different choice than you. Very few are the idiots and extremes that you like to portray them as.

Given that actual qualified doctors are the lowest up takers, which do they fall into? Idiots? Covid skeptics? Libertarians? They’re more medically qualified than you, yes?

The vaccine probably will reduce transmission and that’s one factor. But plenty of people clearly have other factors that outweigh that. Including qualified doctors! So yes it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have it, but it’s clearly not a decisive factor for many people.

Most importantly, you see no problem with insisting health workers have the vaccine. Look at the bloody numbers in the Leicester study! So tell me, how would you implement it? Less than half the bloody doctors have had it. It’s completely unworkable to ask people if they wish to be treated by a non vaccinated doc or nurse. If loads said no, there’s be nowhere near enough doctors/nurses to treat the people who said they wanted to be treated by a vaccinated doc/nurse! Less than half the docs have had it. Surely you can see your suggestion is totally unworkable?

The report states three out of four of its staff at Leicester have had the vaccination and the report is two weeks out of date. There is nothing draconian or wrong with expecting health care staff to try and help the country efforts to minimise the impact of Covid by taking a vaccine themselves. Those refusing eroding trust abs harm the efforts of others. 

‘A spokesperson for Leicester’s Hospitals said: “The data is two weeks old and three in four Leicester hospital staff have now been vaccinated, with uptake rising across all ethnic groups, and others taking up the offer of a jab in their local community.’
Reply
#12
(02-15-2021, 10:32 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 09:45 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 09:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 08:51 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 08:30 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: That was a list of usual suspects who refuse to have the vaccination. I didn’t say they were all Covid deniers it was meant as a list. I hate to tell you but many share my opinion that if you work in the care industry and refuse to have the jab that’s fine just don’t work in the sector. Including well known journalist and ‘maniac’ Shelagh Fogarty on LBC. There is nothing imo controversial or mad about suggesting people who care for others should take the vaccine.

We don’t actually know if the vaccine can help reduce the chances of spreading the virus but there are studies that suggest it may do. If it is proven without doubt then those refusing will put others at needless risk. There will be some who may not be able to have it due to medical reasons but they will be in a very small minority. This is the NHS information on side effects NHS information   This is a BBC report (I know you would have missed it as it wasn’t on Sky Sports Wink ) Fertility Fertility Concerns

Vaccine and the reduction of the virus

You’re backtracking and you know it. You literally referred to the health sector and to children being put at risk because of covid denying libertarians. Read what you wrote again. A tiny tiny percentage of those who don’t want the vaccine are covid deniers (especially in the health sector!). So what do you suggest for those in the health sector who don’t want the vaccine? Force them? Sack them? 

The fact that many share this opinion is irrelevant. I would ask them the same question if they share your opinion. There are significant numbers in the health sector who don’t want it. You say don’t work in the health sector if that’s the case? I ask again, what would you suggest because sacking those amounts is quite absurd. Just look at the stats in Leicester for gods sake! So what do you suggest?

As for the second point, correct, we don’t know. So it’s likely that to a degree at least, it can still be transmitted anyway. The vaccine isn’t even 100% effective so highly unlikely it can it stop 100% transmission.

When significant amounts of people of younger ages refuse the vaccine, if you refer to these as covid deniers, you will be wrong for virtually all of them. You will be incorrectly lumpingvthem in with an extreme if you choose to do that. There are very very few covid deniers. There are significant numbers who don’t want the vaccine.

So back to the health sector, look at the proportion who don’t want it. What’s your suggestion?

Nope I’m not backtracking whatsoever. It was a list of the types of people who say they won’t have the vaccine. Those that are Covid deniers are one, then those obsessed with their liberty but not really bothered about others are another, then those that read crap on social media, then there are those who are sceptical / worried to the point of paranoia.

The studies have data to support initial findings that it can help reduce the spread of infection what have those who refuse to take the injection have as a reason for not taking it? Also just because something may not be 100% effective doesn’t mean you don’t try to reduce the risk by having as many people have the vaccine as possible. 

I see no problem insisting that someone in health and care has the vaccine. Just like many industries have injections for other jobs, or a DBS for working with children etc. I have my doubts it will happen but if it does get proven that it helps reduce infection between people without doubt I think those refusing should declare to those they are caring for that they haven’t had the vaccine so they can make an informed choice if they wish for them to treat them. Liberty works both ways.

You are back tracking. You listed them as a group and called them idiots and plonkers, and said that was polite! You threw in all those who don’t want the vaccine with the extremes. The truth is people weigh up their choice and many come to a different choice than you. Very few are the idiots and extremes that you like to portray them as.

Given that actual qualified doctors are the lowest up takers, which do they fall into? Idiots? Covid skeptics? Libertarians? They’re more medically qualified than you, yes?

The vaccine probably will reduce transmission and that’s one factor. But plenty of people clearly have other factors that outweigh that. Including qualified doctors! So yes it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have it, but it’s clearly not a decisive factor for many people.

Most importantly, you see no problem with insisting health workers have the vaccine. Look at the bloody numbers in the Leicester study! So tell me, how would you implement it? Less than half the bloody doctors have had it. It’s completely unworkable to ask people if they wish to be treated by a non vaccinated doc or nurse. If loads said no, there’s be nowhere near enough doctors/nurses to treat the people who said they wanted to be treated by a vaccinated doc/nurse! Less than half the docs have had it. Surely you can see your suggestion is totally unworkable?

The report states three out of four of its staff at Leicester have had the vaccination and the report is two weeks out of date. There is nothing draconian or wrong with expecting health care staff to try and help the country efforts to minimise the impact of Covid by taking a vaccine themselves. Those refusing eroding trust abs harm the efforts of others. 

‘A spokesperson for Leicester’s Hospitals said: “The data is two weeks old and three in four Leicester hospital staff have now been vaccinated, with uptake rising across all ethnic groups, and others taking up the offer of a jab in their local community.’

Of course as time goes by more will take it, but the fact remains there are significant numbers who do not want it, and doctors are a higher percentage than nurses. It’s also true that these are NOT covid deniers which you have lumped them in with. There are hardly any covid deniers. There are many people who don’t want the vaccine. 1 in 4 is still a huge amount in the health sector! Even 10 per cent is a lot.

It is still completely unworkable to ask people if they don’t want to be treated by non vaccinated people.

Even if 90% have it (they may well in the end) it’s not workable. The nhs is stretched already, it would keel over if you did that!

You will also find that for younger age groups uptake will be lower. This is not because they are covid deniers.

You say there’s nothing wrong with expecting healthcare staff to take the vaccine. Tell me then what you do with those who refuse. Whether that’s 5%, or more likely 10-15% or greater in the end? Sack them? Force them? I’m interested in your opinion. Right now in Leicester there’s about 1 in 4. That’s a shit load.

I’m glad you at least seem to have stopped labelling them as covid denying idiots.
Reply
#13
(02-15-2021, 10:44 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 10:32 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 09:45 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 09:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 08:51 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote: You’re backtracking and you know it. You literally referred to the health sector and to children being put at risk because of covid denying libertarians. Read what you wrote again. A tiny tiny percentage of those who don’t want the vaccine are covid deniers (especially in the health sector!). So what do you suggest for those in the health sector who don’t want the vaccine? Force them? Sack them? 

The fact that many share this opinion is irrelevant. I would ask them the same question if they share your opinion. There are significant numbers in the health sector who don’t want it. You say don’t work in the health sector if that’s the case? I ask again, what would you suggest because sacking those amounts is quite absurd. Just look at the stats in Leicester for gods sake! So what do you suggest?

As for the second point, correct, we don’t know. So it’s likely that to a degree at least, it can still be transmitted anyway. The vaccine isn’t even 100% effective so highly unlikely it can it stop 100% transmission.

When significant amounts of people of younger ages refuse the vaccine, if you refer to these as covid deniers, you will be wrong for virtually all of them. You will be incorrectly lumpingvthem in with an extreme if you choose to do that. There are very very few covid deniers. There are significant numbers who don’t want the vaccine.

So back to the health sector, look at the proportion who don’t want it. What’s your suggestion?

Nope I’m not backtracking whatsoever. It was a list of the types of people who say they won’t have the vaccine. Those that are Covid deniers are one, then those obsessed with their liberty but not really bothered about others are another, then those that read crap on social media, then there are those who are sceptical / worried to the point of paranoia.

The studies have data to support initial findings that it can help reduce the spread of infection what have those who refuse to take the injection have as a reason for not taking it? Also just because something may not be 100% effective doesn’t mean you don’t try to reduce the risk by having as many people have the vaccine as possible. 

I see no problem insisting that someone in health and care has the vaccine. Just like many industries have injections for other jobs, or a DBS for working with children etc. I have my doubts it will happen but if it does get proven that it helps reduce infection between people without doubt I think those refusing should declare to those they are caring for that they haven’t had the vaccine so they can make an informed choice if they wish for them to treat them. Liberty works both ways.

You are back tracking. You listed them as a group and called them idiots and plonkers, and said that was polite! You threw in all those who don’t want the vaccine with the extremes. The truth is people weigh up their choice and many come to a different choice than you. Very few are the idiots and extremes that you like to portray them as.

Given that actual qualified doctors are the lowest up takers, which do they fall into? Idiots? Covid skeptics? Libertarians? They’re more medically qualified than you, yes?

The vaccine probably will reduce transmission and that’s one factor. But plenty of people clearly have other factors that outweigh that. Including qualified doctors! So yes it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have it, but it’s clearly not a decisive factor for many people.

Most importantly, you see no problem with insisting health workers have the vaccine. Look at the bloody numbers in the Leicester study! So tell me, how would you implement it? Less than half the bloody doctors have had it. It’s completely unworkable to ask people if they wish to be treated by a non vaccinated doc or nurse. If loads said no, there’s be nowhere near enough doctors/nurses to treat the people who said they wanted to be treated by a vaccinated doc/nurse! Less than half the docs have had it. Surely you can see your suggestion is totally unworkable?

The report states three out of four of its staff at Leicester have had the vaccination and the report is two weeks out of date. There is nothing draconian or wrong with expecting health care staff to try and help the country efforts to minimise the impact of Covid by taking a vaccine themselves. Those refusing eroding trust abs harm the efforts of others. 

‘A spokesperson for Leicester’s Hospitals said: “The data is two weeks old and three in four Leicester hospital staff have now been vaccinated, with uptake rising across all ethnic groups, and others taking up the offer of a jab in their local community.’

Of course as time goes by more will take it, but the fact remains there are significant numbers who do not want it, and doctors are a higher percentage than nurses. It’s also true that these are NOT covid deniers which you have lumped them in with. There are hardly any covid deniers. There are many people who don’t want the vaccine. 1 in 4 is still a huge amount in the health sector! Even 10 per cent is a lot.

It is still completely unworkable to ask people if they don’t want to be treated by non vaccinated people.

Even if 90% have it (they may well in the end) it’s not workable. The nhs is stretched already, it would keel over if you did that!

You will also find that for younger age groups uptake will be lower. This is not because they are covid deniers.

You say there’s nothing wrong with expecting healthcare staff to take the vaccine. Tell me then what you do with those who refuse. Whether that’s 5%, or more likely 10-15% or greater in the end? Sack them? Force them? I’m interested in your opinion. Right now in Leicester there’s about 1 in 4. That’s a shit load.

I’m glad you at least seem to have stopped labelling them as covid denying idiots.

I never labelled them all as Covid Deniers, it was a list as I made clear of those categories of people who are refusing the vaccine. Ffs I should have bullet pointed them. Wink 

I would suggest that those who have refused to have the vaccine have to declare that they haven’t if they work in the care or health sector and are asked. Give others an informed choice so that they can exercise their freedom to choose if they are happy with them treating them. I would preferably not want them to work in the sector but I doubt that would be enforceable. My reasons are clear if the vaccine is proven beyond doubt to reduce infection then surely the onus is on health professionals to set an example. Carrying on from this refusing the vaccine damages trust in others having it which again should not be the case with those working within the health and care sector.

As an observation when kids have their inoculations it is seen as the responsible thing for parents to do and those who refuse are seen as antivac cranks at worst at best misguided. Adults who are refusing the vaccine are seemingly supported in their decision on the rather myopic argument of freedom of choice by liberals who set rights above responsibilities.
Reply
#14
How will this help? Those most likely to travel and spend money are also the last to be vaccinated. Not been thought through unless they're going to start prioritising the 18-40s.
Reply
#15
I think any covid passport is a non-starter as there will be a number of reasons making it that there are too many that don't want the jab, can't have the jab because of potential reactions, or they simply don't want carry an id because of their views, or probably other reasons that I haven't thought of. The combined number here plus the fake ids that will no doubt appear etc etc. There is talk of the rapid testing coming in for some venues, so that people will have to take a test before they go into the premises - again I can see problems with that, for instance is someone going to stand in a queue with others and possibly transmit the virus before they take the test and be refused admission. I just think there are too many obstacles there for it to work effectively.

However on the work side of the argument, if you are an employer in, say, a care home and you know that you have to protect your residents then you can ask that staff all get vaccinated if they want to work. If a resident contracts covid and dies whilst in the care of the home then, going forward, the care home may face litigation for not applying appropriate care and minimal health standards to protect life. The employer would make a 'reasonable request' (a term in law i believe) to the staff to get vaccinated, if any of the staff refuse vaccination then as an employer I would ensure that any of their issues were addressed through education about the vaccine and explanation about the care home situation and requirement to protect residents. If after all that the member of staff still refused to get the jab then the employer would have good and legal grounds to either not offer any hours, or terminate the contract. The employer would be able in any tribunal to show reasonable steps had been taken and care of the residents meant there were grounds for dismissal.

Now on the wider point, I would approach the problem of people not wanting the vaccine from an educational point of view. There have been a few comments on this short thread that show a misunderstanding of the current situation. 

"Vaccines don't prevent transmission" is a definitive statement when it simply isn't known yet, the reason it isn't known is because there is no real data on this issue yet. It isn't that it won't prevent transmission, it may do, we just don't know yet but the statement is inaccurate with the information we currently have. 

"So, it's likely that to a degree anyway, it can still be transmitted" - again we simply don't know yet. It really is wait and see, there aren't enough people vaccinated to evidence that.

"The vaccine is 100% effective so highly unlikely it can stop 100% transmission" - same again, but on this point it doesn't have to and the point is to reduce transmission as much as possible. The more people that have the vaccine means that even if it only reduces transmission then that multiplied up will reduce transmission greatly.

"So back to the health sector, what about the proportion that don't want it" and "Given that Doctors are the lowest uptakers"- the study looked at just under 20k population including 3k Doctors of which just under 1.3k weren't vaccinated at the point of the report, it didn't state that they didn't want it and the report points out that there is a relatively high number of ethnic minorities because of the location of the study which may change the data if the study was widened. It is also a very small population study that highlights an issue to be looked into and, IMO, an educational issue to be addressed. The 20k in the study were HCWs in total and included admin and facilities workers in the numbers. Here's the study if you want to see more and the data breakdown: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...ll-text#T1 . The report itself was from the 3rd Feb and isn't peer reviewed yet.

Sorry to highlight your comments bb, but it is to show that there are definitive statements being made that aren't accurate. When they get into the wider world they start being taken as fact when they are anything but.
Reply
#16
(02-16-2021, 10:11 AM)baggy1 Wrote: I think any covid passport is a non-starter as there will be a number of reasons making it that there are too many that don't want the jab, can't have the jab because of potential reactions, or they simply don't want carry an id because of their views, or probably other reasons that I haven't thought of. The combined number here plus the fake ids that will no doubt appear etc etc. There is talk of the rapid testing coming in for some venues, so that people will have to take a test before they go into the premises - again I can see problems with that, for instance is someone going to stand in a queue with others and possibly transmit the virus before they take the test and be refused admission. I just think there are too many obstacles there for it to work effectively.

However on the work side of the argument, if you are an employer in, say, a care home and you know that you have to protect your residents then you can ask that staff all get vaccinated if they want to work. If a resident contracts covid and dies whilst in the care of the home then, going forward, the care home may face litigation for not applying appropriate care and minimal health standards to protect life. The employer would make a 'reasonable request' (a term in law i believe) to the staff to get vaccinated, if any of the staff refuse vaccination then as an employer I would ensure that any of their issues were addressed through education about the vaccine and explanation about the care home situation and requirement to protect residents. If after all that the member of staff still refused to get the jab then the employer would have good and legal grounds to either not offer any hours, or terminate the contract. The employer would be able in any tribunal to show reasonable steps had been taken and care of the residents meant there were grounds for dismissal.

Now on the wider point, I would approach the problem of people not wanting the vaccine from an educational point of view. There have been a few comments on this short thread that show a misunderstanding of the current situation. 

"Vaccines don't prevent transmission" is a definitive statement when it simply isn't known yet, the reason it isn't known is because there is no real data on this issue yet. It isn't that it won't prevent transmission, it may do, we just don't know yet but the statement is inaccurate with the information we currently have. 

"So, it's likely that to a degree anyway, it can still be transmitted" - again we simply don't know yet. It really is wait and see, there aren't enough people vaccinated to evidence that.

"The vaccine is 100% effective so highly unlikely it can stop 100% transmission" - same again, but on this point it doesn't have to and the point is to reduce transmission as much as possible. The more people that have the vaccine means that even if it only reduces transmission then that multiplied up will reduce transmission greatly.

"So back to the health sector, what about the proportion that don't want it" and "Given that Doctors are the lowest uptakers"- the study looked at just under 20k population including 3k Doctors of which just under 1.3k weren't vaccinated at the point of the report, it didn't state that they didn't want it and the report points out that there is a relatively high number of ethnic minorities because of the location of the study which may change the data if the study was widened. It is also a very small population study that highlights an issue to be looked into and, IMO, an educational issue to be addressed. The 20k in the study were HCWs in total and included admin and facilities workers in the numbers. Here's the study if you want to see more and the data breakdown: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...ll-text#T1 . The report itself was from the 3rd Feb and isn't peer reviewed yet.

Sorry to highlight your comments bb, but it is to show that there are definitive statements being made that aren't accurate. When they get into the wider world they start being taken as fact when they are anything but.

A few points data from Israel suggests there may be a link between vaccination and lowering of transmission as seen in the report I linked to. 
The report that BB linked to is put into perspective by the Trust itself in the last section of the report which states that the report was two weeks old with its data and that the most up to date stats said 3 out of 4 that worked for the trust that were eligible had, had the jab.
The argument around fertility and other side effects mentioned were covered in the BBC report and suggested even if there were risks they were far less than getting Covid itself. 
Also there is no evidence yet that younger people wont have the jab because by and large not many are eligible currently. Those that I know who work in frontline positions in the NHS and Prison service have happily had the jab.
Reply
#17
(02-16-2021, 07:59 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 10:44 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 10:32 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 09:45 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:
(02-15-2021, 09:28 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Nope I’m not backtracking whatsoever. It was a list of the types of people who say they won’t have the vaccine. Those that are Covid deniers are one, then those obsessed with their liberty but not really bothered about others are another, then those that read crap on social media, then there are those who are sceptical / worried to the point of paranoia.

The studies have data to support initial findings that it can help reduce the spread of infection what have those who refuse to take the injection have as a reason for not taking it? Also just because something may not be 100% effective doesn’t mean you don’t try to reduce the risk by having as many people have the vaccine as possible. 

I see no problem insisting that someone in health and care has the vaccine. Just like many industries have injections for other jobs, or a DBS for working with children etc. I have my doubts it will happen but if it does get proven that it helps reduce infection between people without doubt I think those refusing should declare to those they are caring for that they haven’t had the vaccine so they can make an informed choice if they wish for them to treat them. Liberty works both ways.

You are back tracking. You listed them as a group and called them idiots and plonkers, and said that was polite! You threw in all those who don’t want the vaccine with the extremes. The truth is people weigh up their choice and many come to a different choice than you. Very few are the idiots and extremes that you like to portray them as.

Given that actual qualified doctors are the lowest up takers, which do they fall into? Idiots? Covid skeptics? Libertarians? They’re more medically qualified than you, yes?

The vaccine probably will reduce transmission and that’s one factor. But plenty of people clearly have other factors that outweigh that. Including qualified doctors! So yes it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have it, but it’s clearly not a decisive factor for many people.

Most importantly, you see no problem with insisting health workers have the vaccine. Look at the bloody numbers in the Leicester study! So tell me, how would you implement it? Less than half the bloody doctors have had it. It’s completely unworkable to ask people if they wish to be treated by a non vaccinated doc or nurse. If loads said no, there’s be nowhere near enough doctors/nurses to treat the people who said they wanted to be treated by a vaccinated doc/nurse! Less than half the docs have had it. Surely you can see your suggestion is totally unworkable?

The report states three out of four of its staff at Leicester have had the vaccination and the report is two weeks out of date. There is nothing draconian or wrong with expecting health care staff to try and help the country efforts to minimise the impact of Covid by taking a vaccine themselves. Those refusing eroding trust abs harm the efforts of others. 

‘A spokesperson for Leicester’s Hospitals said: “The data is two weeks old and three in four Leicester hospital staff have now been vaccinated, with uptake rising across all ethnic groups, and others taking up the offer of a jab in their local community.’

Of course as time goes by more will take it, but the fact remains there are significant numbers who do not want it, and doctors are a higher percentage than nurses. It’s also true that these are NOT covid deniers which you have lumped them in with. There are hardly any covid deniers. There are many people who don’t want the vaccine. 1 in 4 is still a huge amount in the health sector! Even 10 per cent is a lot.

It is still completely unworkable to ask people if they don’t want to be treated by non vaccinated people.

Even if 90% have it (they may well in the end) it’s not workable. The nhs is stretched already, it would keel over if you did that!

You will also find that for younger age groups uptake will be lower. This is not because they are covid deniers.

You say there’s nothing wrong with expecting healthcare staff to take the vaccine. Tell me then what you do with those who refuse. Whether that’s 5%, or more likely 10-15% or greater in the end? Sack them? Force them? I’m interested in your opinion. Right now in Leicester there’s about 1 in 4. That’s a shit load.

I’m glad you at least seem to have stopped labelling them as covid denying idiots.

I never labelled them all as Covid Deniers, it was a list as I made clear of those categories of people who are refusing the vaccine. Ffs I should have bullet pointed them. Wink 

I would suggest that those who have refused to have the vaccine have to declare that they haven’t if they work in the care or health sector and are asked. Give others an informed choice so that they can exercise their freedom to choose if they are happy with them treating them. I would preferably not want them to work in the sector but I doubt that would be enforceable. My reasons are clear if the vaccine is proven beyond doubt to reduce infection then surely the onus is on health professionals to set an example. Carrying on from this refusing the vaccine damages trust in others having it which again should not be the case with those working within the health and care sector.

As an observation when kids have their inoculations it is seen as the responsible thing for parents to do and those who refuse are seen as antivac cranks at worst at best misguided. Adults who are refusing the vaccine are seemingly supported in their decision on the rather myopic argument of freedom of choice by liberals who set rights above responsibilities.

Bollocks did you ‘list’ them. Read what you wrote again.

If 1 in 4, or even 10%, have not had the vaccine, it is unworkable to ask people if they don’t want treatment. You know that really. The nhs are already stretched. You can’t come up with a workable solution.

To compare with other inoculations is ridiculous.  very few people are anti vax in general. There’s going to be plenty who don’t want this one. It’s not the same as vaccines that have been around years, however much you try to pretend it is. It may be to you, that’s fine. But it’s not to a lot of people, including doctors who know a thing or two about big pharma.

You can say ‘surely the onus is on health professionals’ but many of those simply won’t agree with you, and don’t believe the onus is on them. You can’t make them think your way. They’ll tell you it’s up to them what they have in their bodies. So no, you haven’t come up with a tangible workable solution.

(02-16-2021, 10:48 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(02-16-2021, 10:11 AM)baggy1 Wrote: I think any covid passport is a non-starter as there will be a number of reasons making it that there are too many that don't want the jab, can't have the jab because of potential reactions, or they simply don't want carry an id because of their views, or probably other reasons that I haven't thought of. The combined number here plus the fake ids that will no doubt appear etc etc. There is talk of the rapid testing coming in for some venues, so that people will have to take a test before they go into the premises - again I can see problems with that, for instance is someone going to stand in a queue with others and possibly transmit the virus before they take the test and be refused admission. I just think there are too many obstacles there for it to work effectively.

However on the work side of the argument, if you are an employer in, say, a care home and you know that you have to protect your residents then you can ask that staff all get vaccinated if they want to work. If a resident contracts covid and dies whilst in the care of the home then, going forward, the care home may face litigation for not applying appropriate care and minimal health standards to protect life. The employer would make a 'reasonable request' (a term in law i believe) to the staff to get vaccinated, if any of the staff refuse vaccination then as an employer I would ensure that any of their issues were addressed through education about the vaccine and explanation about the care home situation and requirement to protect residents. If after all that the member of staff still refused to get the jab then the employer would have good and legal grounds to either not offer any hours, or terminate the contract. The employer would be able in any tribunal to show reasonable steps had been taken and care of the residents meant there were grounds for dismissal.

Now on the wider point, I would approach the problem of people not wanting the vaccine from an educational point of view. There have been a few comments on this short thread that show a misunderstanding of the current situation. 

"Vaccines don't prevent transmission" is a definitive statement when it simply isn't known yet, the reason it isn't known is because there is no real data on this issue yet. It isn't that it won't prevent transmission, it may do, we just don't know yet but the statement is inaccurate with the information we currently have. 

"So, it's likely that to a degree anyway, it can still be transmitted" - again we simply don't know yet. It really is wait and see, there aren't enough people vaccinated to evidence that.

"The vaccine is 100% effective so highly unlikely it can stop 100% transmission" - same again, but on this point it doesn't have to and the point is to reduce transmission as much as possible. The more people that have the vaccine means that even if it only reduces transmission then that multiplied up will reduce transmission greatly.

"So back to the health sector, what about the proportion that don't want it" and "Given that Doctors are the lowest uptakers"- the study looked at just under 20k population including 3k Doctors of which just under 1.3k weren't vaccinated at the point of the report, it didn't state that they didn't want it and the report points out that there is a relatively high number of ethnic minorities because of the location of the study which may change the data if the study was widened. It is also a very small population study that highlights an issue to be looked into and, IMO, an educational issue to be addressed. The 20k in the study were HCWs in total and included admin and facilities workers in the numbers. Here's the study if you want to see more and the data breakdown: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...ll-text#T1 . The report itself was from the 3rd Feb and isn't peer reviewed yet.

Sorry to highlight your comments bb, but it is to show that there are definitive statements being made that aren't accurate. When they get into the wider world they start being taken as fact when they are anything but.

A few points data from Israel suggests there may be a link between vaccination and lowering of transmission as seen in the report I linked to. 
The report that BB linked to is put into perspective by the Trust itself in the last section of the report which states that the report was two weeks old with its data and that the most up to date stats said 3 out of 4 that worked for the trust that were eligible had, had the jab.
The argument around fertility and other side effects mentioned were covered in the BBC report and suggested even if there were risks they were far less than getting Covid itself. 
Also there is no evidence yet that younger people wont have the jab because by and large not many are eligible currently. Those that I know who work in frontline positions in the NHS and Prison service have happily had the jab.

1 in 4 is still a shit load. Even 10 per cent is a lot. You can describe reasons why you think it’s safe, and I don’t disagree, but that’s not the point. The point is a proportion dont want it, and it doesn’t matter how much you or me or anyone ‘educates’ them, they have made their mind up, and it’s not fir us to tell people how to think. To simply say they should have it is a nonsense, when they’ll say no they shouldn’t! Stalemate.

The take up in older generations is huge, 99% ish I think. It will be lower in younger generations. The nhs worker take up is evidence of that. It’s lower in working age than older people. I know two workers in that sector and both have had it, but both said that some haven’t too.

In terms of your point on transmission, I don’t disagree at all. Vaccination is very very likely to help reduce it. In terms of numbers, I think people are going to be surprised how few of the younger generations want the vaccine. The risk of getting covid is higher than fertility issues, but when they’re not worried about covid at their age, a lot will take that chance IMO. I may be wrong, just a gut feeling, but my guess is half the people under 30 won’t want it.
Reply
#18
This won't happen. It's exceptionally divisive and impossible to police.
Reply
#19
(02-16-2021, 11:35 AM)Protheroe Wrote: This won't happen. It's exceptionally divisive and impossible to police.

I agree. It is as divisive as it gets. The hospitality sector will also want as many customers as possible after the last 12 months. They won’t want to pick and choose who can eat/drink etc at their business.
Reply
#20
"What I don't think we will have in this country is - as it were - vaccination passports to allow you to go to, say, the pub or something like that."

I don't think it can be clearer than that.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}