Care home staff
 
Notifications
Clear all

Care home staff

17 Posts
7 Users
4 Reactions
1,637 Views
Posts: 142
Topic starter
(@lip09am)
Joined: 4 years ago

Are the government’s actions re. Mandating vaccination for care home staff justified at all? Of being vaccinated helps to reduce transmission then perhaps they have some justification. Thoughts?

16 Replies
JockCovidiot
Posts: 163
(@jockcovidiot)
Joined: 3 years ago

Mandate vaccines knowing those not taken them by now probably never will... Sack the staff who refuse... Care home close or have to turn away residents... Hospitals cannot discharge elderly to care homes, causing bed blockages and "pressure" on NHS... Declare NHS is "at breaking point"... Roll out plan B...

There you have it obedience passports now rolled out in england.

Why do i know this to be the case? Look at Scotland and Wales... No vaccine mandates for NHS or care staff.... WHY? Because Scot Gov and Welsh Gov were already successful in rolling out obedience passports so there is no need.

It's nowt to do with a virus. When you accept that you can start to make sense of this sh*t show.

Reply
JockCovidiot
Posts: 163
(@jockcovidiot)
Joined: 3 years ago

Eventually vaccination will be mandated for everyone. No jab no job will become law and requirements for obedience passports will expand to every walk of life... But it's cool tho' you have a choice to get vaxxed or not... no one will force you... they will just make it impossible to live until you comply LOL

Reply
10 Replies
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 847

@jockcovidiot 

While you have the right to get vaccinated, there are consequences. Firstly to yourself, as you will be at higher risk of illness or worse. This is your decision, but it does have an impact on others.

Your higher risk becomes a risk to others, as you become a potential infection risk. If you get I'll and require treatment to present that risk to health care workers. You also consume resources that could be used by someone else. So you impacted someone else.

If you are a healthcare worker, you are a risk to those that you are supposed to help.

Your personal decision has consequences. You made a conscious decision to take a risk, but those that you encounter are subject to the risk that you decided to apply to them.

That's why vaccine passports exist. It is to limit your potential for harm to others.

I don't know if you have considered this aspect of the subject.

Reply
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 591

@onion 

It's not for you to pontificate about whether other individual human beings are at a higher risk of anything from not being jabbed for any particular cause.

That depends on the individual in question and has always previously been looked privately in consultation against the individial's health, past, present and prospective.

It denies science in that people especially younger people with strong natural immune systems are less likely to become seriously ill than those who are older and have weaker immune systems.

You have no knowledge of why so many people have decided not to be jabbed.

As an example, a surgeon said the other day that he does not need to have a particular hepatitis jab because he has consistently strong antibody test results. The system within which he works recognises the concept.

You say doing or not doing something has to come with consequences. 

Is that your principle? Then it works both ways. If you expect mandatory jabs or people lose their jobs then the consequences of them have to be borne by you or whoever it is you work for. 

There must be an uncapped publicly governed compensation scheme funded in advance by the companies who produce, manufacture and market the jabs by way of a retention from the payments due to them under their contracts. More widely the law must recognise those involved in pushing them politically (rather than the passive approach of making them available freely, with sufficient information)without longterm safety data are liable prima facie in negligence for any harms.

The compensation scheme has to be uncapped as the longterm safety of these medical products is not known. But it should be commercially acceptable as the trials have been conducted legitimately, accurately and openly and the results reflect accurately the effectiveness and safety of the products.

In other words as they are "100% safe and effective" the compensation scheme will demonstrate this by being called upon rarely.

Those should be the consequences which you seem intent on highlighting ordinary hard-working people need you to lecture them on, which derive from the actions and omissions of those producing and selling and driving policy to force these products into people.

Reply
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 847
Posted by: @coronanationstreet

@onion 

It's not for you to pontificate about whether other individual human beings are at a higher risk of anything from not being jabbed for any particular cause.

That depends on the individual in question and has always previously been looked privately in consultation against the individial's health, past, present and prospective.

It denies science in that people especially younger people with strong natural immune systems are less likely to become seriously ill than those who are older and have weaker immune systems.

You have no knowledge of why so many people have decided not to be jabbed.

As an example, a surgeon said the other day that he does not need to have a particular hepatitis jab because he has consistently strong antibody test results. The system within which he works recognises the concept.

You say doing or not doing something has to come with consequences. 

Is that your principle? Then it works both ways. If you expect mandatory jabs or people lose their jobs then the consequences of them have to be borne by you or whoever it is you work for. 

There must be an uncapped publicly governed compensation scheme funded in advance by the companies who produce, manufacture and market the jabs by way of a retention from the payments due to them under their contracts. More widely the law must recognise those involved in pushing them politically (rather than the passive approach of making them available freely, with sufficient information)without longterm safety data are liable prima facie in negligence for any harms.

The compensation scheme has to be uncapped as the longterm safety of these medical products is not known. But it should be commercially acceptable as the trials have been conducted legitimately, accurately and openly and the results reflect accurately the effectiveness and safety of the products.

In other words as they are "100% safe and effective" the compensation scheme will demonstrate this by being called upon rarely.

Those should be the consequences which you seem intent on highlighting ordinary hard-working people need you to lecture them on, which derive from the actions and omissions of those producing and selling and driving policy to force these products into people.

You are only looking at this from the point of view of the person deciding to not get vaccinated.

There is an impact on others, but you seem to deny this exists.

Reply
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 591

@onion 

What impact on others? 

1. You don't know my medical status, jabs included. I haven't said I haven't had one or more of the jabs or that, if I hadn't, I wouldn't do so.

2. You don't know where I am, what I do so you cannot even know what "others" you yourself are talking about. Your baseless generic statement certainly highlights your politics, principally the desire to enslave people by reference to medical treatments they have or haven't had, but has no grounding in anything else.

3. Your statement denies fact and science which show currently the jabs do not do enough to prevent transmission to prevent even those who have had them "harming others".

I'd cut your losses, set up another new username and start again if I were you. 

Reply
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 847
Posted by: @coronanationstreet

@onion 

What impact on others? 

1. You don't know my medical status, jabs included. I haven't said I haven't had one or more of the jabs or that, if I hadn't, I wouldn't do so.

2. You don't know where I am, what I do so you cannot even know what "others" you yourself are talking about. Your baseless generic statement certainly highlights your politics, principally the desire to enslave people by reference to medical treatments they have or haven't had, but has no grounding in anything else.

3. Your statement denies fact and science which show currently the jabs do not do enough to prevent transmission to prevent even those who have had them "harming others".

I'd cut your losses, set up another new username and start again if I were you. 

Responding to each item.

1. Your medical status is not relevant. A person who decides to not be vaccinated impacts themselves and potentially those they interact with.

2. Can't really see what your point is here, so I will ignore it.

3. Your assertion is incorrect. Vaccines have a greater than zero effectiveness at preventing infection. Greater than zero has a benefit.

Obviously I won't convince you as you seem to impervious to logic.

 

Reply
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 615

@onion 

Do you know why they never mandated the annual flu shot for all health care workers despite the huge annual cost of influenza? Because study after study showed (the most thorough one being by the NHS ironically enough)  that mandatory vaccination of health care workers for influenza had no measurable effect on the infection rate or heath outcome for patents. And only a minor impact on total infection rates for the health care workers.

Basically 50% voluntary vaccination rate was good enough to stop serious cluster outbreaks. Which is the primary purpose of mass public health vaccination.

The health risks for those under 60 from SARs CoV 2 is lower than from seasonal influenza. For those over 60 those at highest risk of serious symptoms from a SARs CoV 2 infection are precisely those who have the lowest response rate to vaccination.  So any arguments for mandatory flu shots are actually stronger than for SARs CoV 2. 

When it comes to Hospital Acquired Infections the health risk from a potential SARs CoV 2 infection from an unvaccinated health care worker is at least an order of magnitude lower that all the other infectious diseases to be found in a typical hospital.  Look up Hospital Acquired Pneumonias if you want a scary read. MRSA is a trivial problem in comparison. 

So a purely voluntary vaccination policy will get you well over the 40% needed to get all potential public health benefit.  Everything else is just politics. No science involved.

 

Reply
(@lip09am)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 142

@jmc the bit you're missing is that with flu, at any one time a cross section of the population will have already have some acquired resistance to whatever flu is circulating. That immediately makes flu vaccination less essential than covid, to which nobody had any acquired resistance. The second thing is that flu vaccination is a lot less effective than the covid jabs, so the case for making it mandatory doesn't stack up as well. However, a worrying number of people acquired covid in hospitals whilst being treated for something different. They either caught it off other patients or off staff, but it's pretty academic as to which. It was spreading in hospitals. Under those conditions the more people who are vaccinated the better, whether patients or staff. I would also point out that Hepatitis B vaccination has been mandatory for any doctors doing anything that breeches skin for decades, and this is perfectly accepted practice. I really don't understand what the problem is. "Shan't" and spitting out the dummy isn't even remotely professional.

Reply
(@lip09am)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 142

@jmc but covid isn't flu is it. And 50% vaccination uptake isn't enough.

And don't make me get the citation needed meme out.

Reply
 jmc
(@jmc)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 615

@lip09am 

When you use vaccination as a public health policy to prevent the spread of an infectious disease the percentage of the population you need to vaccine depends on how infectious the disease is and how effective the vaccine is.

Its the base vaccination rate. (1 - 1/R0)

With diseases like measles, mumps etc as they are so highly infectious (R0 = 12 plus) that you need around 90% of the population to for public health vaccination to work.  Influenza and SARs CoV 2 are not very infectious in comparison. ( R0 less than 1.5) so you only need 40% to 50% for the same pubic health effect. 

Thats assumes the vaccine works. Which they do so well for MMR etc and all public health vaccines in the past. Because they give sterilizing immunity. 

Well the official numbers claim a 80% / 90% efficacy for SARs CoV 2 vaccines and they are curiously  silent on the nature of the protection given. Like MMR etc good for life. Or more like Tdap. Needs a ten year booster.  Or is just like the flu shot, only good for a flu season, and only gives partial immunity. Just takes the edge of an infection, no sterilizing immunity. 

Now if SARs CoV 2 is just like the flu shot then that raises a whole bunch of other serious questions. If the vaccine just reduces severity of infection but not total infection rates then there is no optimum base vaccination rate. If its 10% or 99% the population infection rate stays about the same. The only difference is the clinical case rate / hospitalization rate. 

For the last 30 plus years there has been clinical calculator to identify those people who are at high risk of serious  symptoms from respiratory infections that would need hospital treatment. Its call PSI/PORT in the US. 

https://www.mdcalc.com/psi-port-score-pneumonia-severity-index-cap

Depending on where you put the cut off less than 20% max of the population have a high enough PSI/PORT score to warrant any kind of vaccination that might reduce the probability of serious symptoms in case of infection.  With a safe vaccine of course. 

When you break open any standard textbook on public health vaccinology you will quickly find that mass vaccination for SARs CoV 2 meets none of the traditional criteria risk/benefits that have informed all previous public health vaccines. None

Chapter 21 here..

https://www.amazon.com/Vaccination-Programmes-Epidemiology-Monitoring-Evaluation-ebook/dp/B09C6PYBXR

..has some very good worked examples for other infectious diseases.

Reply
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 319
Posted by: @onion

 

That's why vaccine passports exist. It is to limit your potential for harm to others.

 

hit them where it hurts them the most in their pockets.

Reply
JockCovidiot
Posts: 163
(@jockcovidiot)
Joined: 3 years ago

Thinksaboutonions that is utter rubbish. I have told you... two words... Amanda Pritchard!

I am of no risk to anyone that I was not in 2019. If i am ill i will stay at home as i have always done. The vulnerable are protected no? Or are the vaxxines a load of rubbish?

Which is it thinksaboutonions... either the vaccines work and protect the vulnerable in which case my decision is irrelevant or they do not work in which case my decision is also irrelevant.

Obedienc e passports exist soley as a means of coercive control they do nothing to reduce spread as has been seen in Ireland, Israel, Wales and Scotland.

 

Reply
3 Replies
 TTT
(@ttt)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 847
Posted by: @jockcovidiot

Thinksaboutonions that is utter rubbish. I have told you... two words... Amanda Pritchard!

I am of no risk to anyone that I was not in 2019. If i am ill i will stay at home as i have always done. The vulnerable are protected no? Or are the vaxxines a load of rubbish?

Which is it thinksaboutonions... either the vaccines work and protect the vulnerable in which case my decision is irrelevant or they do not work in which case my decision is also irrelevant.

Obedienc e passports exist soley as a means of coercive control they do nothing to reduce spread as has been seen in Ireland, Israel, Wales and Scotland.

 

You seem to think naming Amanda Pritchard is an answer to all subjects.

I know it is exciting when you learn new words, but you really must try to diversify a little.

Now to the rest of your "reasoning"... We know vaccines work well, but not perfectly and that their benefit wanes over time. That is why you could represent a risk to other people. Your claim that you will stay home if you get ill means nothing, even if it is true. You can still be infectious with mild or no symptoms.

If you have difficulty with this explanation, try to be specific about anything you don't understand and someone can explain it to you.

Reply
(@ttenl)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 25
  • @onion 

The uksha report shows that brahmins (vaxxed) have higher COVID infection rates than the dalits (unvaxxed). So the while transmission argument is questionable at best.

 

If you move on to the using NHS resources argument then logically you have to apply that to everything not just COVID.   Obesity is a far bigger health crisis than covid. Have you seen how many nurses are really fat. 

 

Thirdly COVID isn't an especially deadly virus anyway. Discussion around covid shouldn't be based on the notion that it's like the black death in medieval Europe.

 

The death rate last year in the UK was less bad than 2008, when, I don't recall, bodies piled on carts and X's painted on doors.

Reply
(@coronanationstreet)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 591

@jockcovidiot 

Yes it's a quandry for them.

Reply
Share:
May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Free Speech Union

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.