Covid Vaccination ID
(04-15-2021, 12:34 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(04-15-2021, 11:18 AM)Sliced Wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460

Buried at the bottom of the BBC page: "Covid: 82% of positive rapid tests 'were correct' - BBC News"

Framed as if this is really good by the BBC, but it means that out of 16,000 positive tests of children over 3,000 were actually negative, almost 1 in 5. As the prevalence of COVID decreases this proportion of false positives will be higher.

As I said before, this is exactly why mass testing just won't work.

Symptomatic testing? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Mass testing? definitely not

Also ignores the issue of false negatives.

Fortunately false negatives isn't really an issue:

https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/showthread....#pid302491
Reply
(04-15-2021, 12:48 PM)Sliced Wrote:
(04-15-2021, 12:34 PM)Borin' Baggie Wrote:
(04-15-2021, 11:18 AM)Sliced Wrote: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460

Buried at the bottom of the BBC page: "Covid: 82% of positive rapid tests 'were correct' - BBC News"

Framed as if this is really good by the BBC, but it means that out of 16,000 positive tests of children over 3,000 were actually negative, almost 1 in 5. As the prevalence of COVID decreases this proportion of false positives will be higher.

As I said before, this is exactly why mass testing just won't work.

Symptomatic testing? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Mass testing? definitely not

Also ignores the issue of false negatives.

Fortunately false negatives isn't really an issue:

https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/showthread....#pid302491

Fair enough
Reply
Pob better not refer to himself or the Tories are liberal ever again.

For reference, Israel have an extremely restrictive vaccine certificate called a "Green Card" that would mean millions of people wouldn't even be allowed to go to the gym.
Reply
(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.

I don't know why they didn't just ask me in the 1st place, I don't just make this shit up.

'Reasonable' to require care home staff to get jab - watchdog

The UK's human rights watchdog says it is reasonable to legally require care home staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Care home workers were included in one of the earliest priority groups for vaccination so, in most cases, they have had both doses and are now fully vaccinated. But some staff have not come forward to take up the vaccine and that stance has become a matter of public and political debate in recent months.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says a proportionate approach to requiring care home workers to get the vaccine could give more freedom to the residents they care for, as lockdown restrictions ease in the wider world.
But it says the government should include safeguards and minimise the risk of discrimination, with exemptions included in the legislation - such as for those who cannot have a jab for medical reasons.
Any legislation should have a sunset clause and be subject to regular review, it adds. 
The government has held a consultation on making vaccines mandatory for those working at older adult care homes in England.
The EHRC acknowledges this would be a "significant departure" from current health policy but says the move could protect service users who are at particular risk from the virus.
Reply
(06-02-2021, 01:50 PM)baggy1 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.

I don't know why they didn't just ask me in the 1st place, I don't just make this shit up.

'Reasonable' to require care home staff to get jab - watchdog

The UK's human rights watchdog says it is reasonable to legally require care home staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Care home workers were included in one of the earliest priority groups for vaccination so, in most cases, they have had both doses and are now fully vaccinated. But some staff have not come forward to take up the vaccine and that stance has become a matter of public and political debate in recent months.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says a proportionate approach to requiring care home workers to get the vaccine could give more freedom to the residents they care for, as lockdown restrictions ease in the wider world.
But it says the government should include safeguards and minimise the risk of discrimination, with exemptions included in the legislation - such as for those who cannot have a jab for medical reasons.
Any legislation should have a sunset clause and be subject to regular review, it adds. 
The government has held a consultation on making vaccines mandatory for those working at older adult care homes in England.
The EHRC acknowledges this would be a "significant departure" from current health policy but says the move could protect service users who are at particular risk from the virus.

Common sense might actually prevail over some nonsensical ‘I know my rights’ argument. It shouldn’t just be for older people however it should be for all care staff that deal with the most vulnerable young or old.
Reply
(06-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Common sense might actually prevail over some nonsensical ‘I know my rights’ argument. It shouldn’t just be for older people however it should be for all care staff that deal with the most vulnerable young or old.

Not certain that's what it says Dekka - it refers to those working at older adult care homes, not older workers. However I do think that it's hard to penalise anyone that hasn't had the opportunity for the jab, but then again I would be making older adult care home workers priority to get the jab.
Reply
(06-02-2021, 03:52 PM)baggy1 Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 03:44 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Common sense might actually prevail over some nonsensical ‘I know my rights’ argument. It shouldn’t just be for older people however it should be for all care staff that deal with the most vulnerable young or old.

Not certain that's what it says Dekka - it refers to those working at older adult care homes, not older workers. However I do think that it's hard to penalise anyone that hasn't had the opportunity for the jab, but then again I would be making older adult care home workers priority to get the jab.

It doesn’t say that which was my point. There are many children with severe neurological problems and those fed via tube etc that are as vulnerable as those in care homes. There is no real difference other than most of the population can relate to having older parents to look after but not medically vulnerable children. What I’m saying is one has a lot louder voice than the other throughout the pandemic which I think isn’t fair or justifiable.
Reply


Forum Jump:


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