Fed up with unvaccinated colleague isolating

[Peevedcolleague]

Name changed 'cos I'll probably get slated but aibu to be pissed off about a colleague self isolating yet again while the rest of us have to carry on and pick up the pieces?

A new colleague chose not to be jabbed and is now facing numerous isolation periods at home on full pay where the rest of us have to carry on and cover her workload. Nature of the job means she's likely to be a close contact fairly regularly.

Even if she changed her mind and gets jabbed tomorrow, it'll be 10 weeks minimum before she's exempt from isolation so this could happen several more times yet.

Aibu to feel resentful and wish she bloody well got jabbed like the rest of us?

I think you will find that most people on a parenting forum are using the word in a very everyday basic way (I know I am) which is to denote " using or based on new ideas ".

www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/experimental

experimental
(ɪkspɛrɪmɛntəl)

1. ADJECTIVE

Something that is experimental is new or uses new ideas or methods, and might be modified later if it is unsuccessful.

Synonyms: innovative, new, original, radical

And, as I have said above, posts saying that "it carries a certain connotation which makes it obvious where you stand in the debate" come across really oddly and as really defensive. Just saying.

All animal cells contain mRNA. It is hardly a novel class of molecules.

Last couple of places i have temped at if your not double jabbed and have to isolate its no pay , I think many places will go this way eventually if these rules continue

And, as I have said above, posts saying that "it carries a certain connotation which makes it obvious where you stand in the debate" come across really oddly and as really defensive

Not defensive in the slightest. Words have specific meanings and people who use them for effect rather than precision are doing so for a reason. I might call someone a cunt and then explain that as I am originally from Glasgow I meant it affectionately, but the fact remains that in the everyday basic way most people are going to assume it's an insult.

I was reluctant to have the vaccine because I was scared. I don’t trust the government but knew that there was no grand conspiracy. It was just the noise around AZ vs Pfizer and blood clots etc. And when they changed the minimum age for AZ (I was about to turn 40 and it switched to Pfizer).

As it was, I am double jabbed but having Boris Johnson as our prime minister and that bunch of ducking cowboys in charge meant I didn’t trust them at all. And I found that a horrible place to be - I have flu vaccine every year, kids are all jabbed up etc.

So when I hear of people who don’t get jabbed, I understand where they’re coming from. And wish sometimes the internet didn’t exist with its capacity of so much fake news.

MissConductUS - with this one sentence I feel like you have just dismissed decades of work by lots of very dedicated and very knowledgeable people!

The R and D surrounding mRNA vaccines has not been a snap simply because mRNA is a commonly occuring molecule.

I think the history and science around them is fascinating and they have huge potential. I still reserve the right to consider them as experimental though.

thing47 as a fellow Scot I defend your right to use the c word any way you desire.

Even if your use of it on this particular thread at this particular moment comes across as really hostile.

@Beachcomber

MissConductUS - with this one sentence I feel like you have just dismissed decades of work by lots of very dedicated and very knowledgeable people!

The R and D surrounding mRNA vaccines has not been a snap simply because mRNA is a commonly occuring molecule.

I think the history and science around them is fascinating and they have huge potential. I still reserve the right to consider them as experimental though.

My point was that a treatment that uses a naturally occurring process to produce proteins is unlikely to be harmful.

My understanding of the R&D is that the most challenging part was getting the mRNA into the cells with the lipid nanoparticle.

To vax or not to vax HAS to be a choice issue. Abortion choices are a similarly argued issue - whose body is it?

If the colleague is prepared to accept the consequences of their actions and end up in ITU so-be-it - however annoying and expensive that is. Smokers have an impact on the rest of us too. And how about riding a motorbike? All our individual choices have an impact on other people: the last minute road crosser that scares me, the person who drives on one glass of wine, the person who leaves a car "for only a minute" whilst they shop etc. In fact, it has been shown that the charity heroes who do parachute jumps are so frequently injured they cost the NHS much more than they raise. But they are heroes right?! They are not being thoughtless at all. The activity is not the issue, it is the consequence.

We all have reasons for minor acts of self-serving behaviours. We are not robots and we have even that right: to be selfish. If the impact is too great on the community we have rules and laws - smoke outside, pay a fine, go to jail.

I'd rather not be impacted by a colleague in isolation, so why does the firm not find them a work from home option? Or the government should insist on a daily test for non-vax folks.

Nonetheless, I do not support any non-consensual control over another person's body. That could be with medicine - including vaccination or surgery, acts of aggression or sexual violence (I am a nurse). Of course, the detention of a body i.e. prison, is control over a body, but it takes that body and keeps the community safe. Isolation/quarantine does the same.

Both situations respect the right to have a body and make free, informed choices about it ourselves, whilst at the same time finding ways to keep the rest of us safe.

No one would advocate for forced sterilisation these days, even for fatal diseases that are only inherited. Compulsory vaccination is nonsense.

@OhWhyNot

AstraZeneca Johnson & Johnson Roll out was suspended for a time

AstraZeneca
Moderna
Changes in guidance changes around age of those receiving vaccine

The waning of the effectiveness of the vaccines

If you have kept up with the news you will have been aware these are just some of the changes

If someone is very wary of those in the medial profession/medication/authorities (and there are valid reason why people are) the changing of information we are receiving why is it so hard to understand that some people do not have such faith to go along with the advice given

Roll out of Astra Zeneca has never been suspended in the UK. The guidance on AstraZeneca has only changed once with regard age. I don't think guidance on Pfizer or Moderna has changed during the pandemic. It's inevitable that when a drug has been rolled out to millions we will have more knowledge on safety thanks post surveillance monitoring. That happens with every drug. In this case despite the fact that millions and millions people have had the vaccine there have been very very few adverse effects. What exactly are people waiting for when they say they want more information?

@user5464

To vax or not to vax HAS to be a choice issue. Abortion choices are a similarly argued issue - whose body is it?

If the colleague is prepared to accept the consequences of their actions and end up in ITU so-be-it - however annoying and expensive that is. Smokers have an impact on the rest of us too. And how about riding a motorbike? All our individual choices have an impact on other people: the last minute road crosser that scares me, the person who drives on one glass of wine, the person who leaves a car "for only a minute" whilst they shop etc. In fact, it has been shown that the charity heroes who do parachute jumps are so frequently injured they cost the NHS much more than they raise. But they are heroes right?! They are not being thoughtless at all. The activity is not the issue, it is the consequence.

We all have reasons for minor acts of self-serving behaviours. We are not robots and we have even that right: to be selfish. If the impact is too great on the community we have rules and laws - smoke outside, pay a fine, go to jail.

I'd rather not be impacted by a colleague in isolation, so why does the firm not find them a work from home option? Or the government should insist on a daily test for non-vax folks.

Nonetheless, I do not support any non-consensual control over another person's body. That could be with medicine - including vaccination or surgery, acts of aggression or sexual violence (I am a nurse). Of course, the detention of a body i.e. prison, is control over a body, but it takes that body and keeps the community safe. Isolation/quarantine does the same.

Both situations respect the right to have a body and make free, informed choices about it ourselves, whilst at the same time finding ways to keep the rest of us safe.

No one would advocate for forced sterilisation these days, even for fatal diseases that are only inherited. Compulsory vaccination is nonsense.

Yes!

As I have mentioned before some people are wary they struggle to trust take on board all the information etc

This is for many reasons

The changes that have been reported where ever this is or why this is this will raise anxiety for some and increase their mistrust

That you or I are able to take on board the news and not feel wary of the information given, that are able to accept changes is irrelevant

To vax or not to vax HAS to be a choice issue.

Yes. But so does whom to employ in hospitals or care homes.

People have the right to smoke and drink, even to excess. But people who smoke in patients' faces, or get so drunk in working hours that they cannot tell when a patient needs urgent help, would not be employed as a hospital doctor, nurse or carer.

The same goes for people who refuse to get vaccinated or to take other necessary precautions when working with the very vulnerable.

Testing is better than vaccination at keeping the vulnerable safe. We can vaccinate all we like but no vaccine is 100%.

This issue arises with HIV +ve healthcare workers too, and with surgeons who wear colostomy bags that might leak in theatre, or midwives who have active herpes etc.

Precautions to prevent iatrogenic harm are always in place. Hand washing is one such procedure that has been followed since Florence Nightingale.

It is just as wrong to make a skilled health worker change their body to suit their job, as it was for the Isle of Man to imprison everyone who tested HIV +ve. And unecessary.

Transmission is what we are talking about.

If a skilled worker is not able to prevent transmission then they shouldn't be employed.

The same risks affect the general population now that have been the subject of my day-to-day life as a nurse for nearly 40 years. MRSA and C.difficile - remember them?! It is entirely possible to prevent spread by following procedures. We do DNA tests on the exact organisms to investigate transmission when we think a professional is responsible. A nurse was sacked for infecting her childminders kids with a virus a while ago. She left work in uniform and carried it with her.

Train train train staff and audit procedures
Remove incompetency.
Wear masks for airborne contaminants
Wash your hands - really properly - not a quick rub on the palms with gel
Do not touch your face
Wash your hands
Clean the things you touch with dirty hands

We had a child with salmonella in our household. Explosive. Two adults, one toilet and 3 kids under 7yr and no one else caught it.

Wash your hands
Wear a mask

*the nurse was also taken off the NM&C register

Testing is better than vaccination at keeping the vulnerable safe.

And doing both is better than doing either on its own.

@ilovesooty I have no problem with restrictions because I'm not vaccinated as they don't affect me.
Where I am we have very few, just t.oday they brought in a few small ones and they won't affect me at all.

@shrodingersbiscuit

Arguing that forced sterilisation and abortion are in the same vein as a vaccine is nothing but Godwin's Law in action.

No one has actually ever said anyone will be forced to have any vaccine, but for public health reasons they may be required for some jobs, much like your childhood, Hep B or travel jabs can be. And all those vaccines were new at some point too.

HIV, colostomy bags, MRSA, C. Diff and Herpes all have one thing in common - they are not respiratory viruses. So measures like handwashing are important, but they can't stop a respiratory virus like Covid running rampant round a hospital in the way they can (could, if people did it properly) MRSA. Add in overcrowded hospitals, underresourcing and staff shortages and I don't care how skilled your staff are they'd spread a respiratory virus easily.

In answer to the person who asked if we know how effective vaccines are against transmission - we do know. The Dutch released data showing for Delta a vaccinated person is 63% less likely to infect unvaccinated members of the same household (so the absolute highest risk scenario for most people). for Alpha variant it was 73%.

Vaccines are needed in healthcare worker populations to prevent spread, no other measure is as effective in isolation.

Maybe not ‘forced’ but coerced. Just as unethical

People should be free to make choices about their own bodies based on their own belief system once they have all the relevant information. That should then be the end of it .

It’s uncomfortable yes to compare vaccinations to sterilisation and/or abortion but it does get the point across

Whether it’s seen as for the greater good/to protect others etc sometimes you will get individuals who don’t have views that align and they will want to know the individual benefit . It has to be respected

DD had to have Hep A & B typhoid and yellow fever before being able to spend several months volunteering in S America. HCPs have to have certain jabs for similar reasons as explained above. It’s a condition of travel/employment rather than coercion.

People should be free to make choices about their own bodies based on their own belief system once they have all the relevant information. That should then be the end of it .

What about the vulnerable patients having the right to make choices about their own bodies being exposed to the risk of a virus that could kill or seriously disable them?

@over50andfab

DD had to have Hep A & B typhoid and yellow fever before being able to spend several months volunteering in S America. HCPs have to have certain jabs for similar reasons as explained above. It’s a condition of travel/employment rather than coercion.

On that case maybe they need to make it a choice for those already in nhs/care jobs and for anyone new it’s a requirement as those already working in these areas didn’t agree to it as a condition when they started their careers

@ddl1

People should be free to make choices about their own bodies based on their own belief system once they have all the relevant information. That should then be the end of it .

What about the vulnerable patients having the right to make choices about their own bodies being exposed to the risk of a virus that could kill or seriously disable them?

It’s a difficult situation but the rights of one group don’t trump another. All that can be done is to offer the vaccine and the info to support individuals to make the choice to have it but you simply can’t force people

People should be free to make choices about their own bodies based on their own belief system once they have all the relevant information. That should then be the end of it .

If you had been in lockdown for the last 18 months; and you had been asked if one of your children got Covid, would you agree that they should stay at home, rather than get sent to hospital (if necessary), would you still say its down to the choice of the individual not to be vaccinated, when one of your children was regarded as expendable?

Its easy for people to talk about bodily autonomy, when they enjoy relative freedom to go to the shops, the pub, the cinema, sports events, the theatre, parties, etc, and the expectation that they will be treated in hospital, if they are sick.

Residents in care homes, including young people in their 20s, are still in lockdown, without a break since March 2020. Staff still have to wear PPE, which makes life difficult for people with communication impairments - relatives see faster cognitive deterioration, as a result. They can only be taken to places outdoors, except to use a public toilet (wearing a mask); and its 14 days isolation in their bedroom, if they have to go to hospital. Goodness knows how many elderly or disabled people died, because ambulances were told not to go to care homes, and blanket DNARs were put on them.