Forcing vaccination

[Peaceiseveryrhing]

Just read this on the Beeb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55718553

Personally, I think it's outrageous that employees may insist on vaccination and airlines preventing travel.

A communistic approach!

What nonsense is being spouted on here. Airlines, and whole countries, already make certain vaccines a condition of travel too. I have been a pin cushion on many occasions in order to travel. It is just now it will be Spain and Dubai as well as Kenya or Laos.

And many private schools quite rightly refuse entry to those who are not vaccinated against childhood diseases. There was an outbreak of Measles in three secondary schools locally, 400 cases, the local hospital had to put up signs to prevent parents marching into A&E, risking infecting vulnerable people, when their children developed complications and they discovered it wasn't "just another childhood disease" . I even heard someone spout the nonsense that it was just a part of growing up and people held Measles parties. No they bloody did not, not when you knew children who had ended up with pneumonia and worse. What we had were German Measles parties to try to keep it easy to spot and not put pregnant women at risk, you knew children seriously damaged by German Measles in pregnancy too.

It's easy to be complacent and dismissive when we have mostly been protected against infectious diseases because most people were only too willing to be vaccinated in the past. Covid changes that.

👍 hanmonds, think you could be right

So if employers can demand their staff get vaccinated or give a bloody good reason why not this forces women to disclose their pregnancy plans and hopes.

There is an exaggerated or perhaps outdated idea in some quarters that pregnant or even TTC women CANNOT have the vaccine.

The current view is that pregnant women should not have the vaccine routinely until there is more data available. But it is now thought that pregnant women can reasonably consider having the vaccine if they are at particularly high risk for Covid: either ECV or in a high-risk occupation such as frontline healthcare. And that women who are TTC can certainly have the vaccine, as can women who are breastfeeding.

I doubt that employers in general will insist on the vaccination anyway: only perhaps those in healthcare settings or care homes.

[quote Haiyaa]@Peaceiseveryrhing

Nobody knows what the long term effects of these vaccines are. And that's fact! No other vaccine in the history of mankind has been rushed out the door without long term testing.

Ummmm no, I suggest you check yourself on that one. After several failed attempts with polio vaccines, the first successful trial of IPV was completed in the span of a year before being approved. And it was tested on children. Do you think that a product/vaccine that takes 15 years to get to market starts collecting clinical data on day one and then has a follow up 15 years later before being approved? Bless your heart. The vast majority of the time taken to get a drug to market is red tape, applications for funding and general bureaucracy. A HUGE factor is money, take vaccines for malaria and Ebola. They affect poorer countries almost exclusively so “Big Pharma” isn’t going to be making the big bucks even though from a public health point of view it would be an incredible achievement and completely change millions of lives. So they get scraps of funding and resource until eventually they can go ahead with the trials. Covid however does not discriminate and there is money to be made simply from the sheer volume of people to be vaccinated not to mention governments and private donors pumping money and basically throwing the kitchen sink at it. That means everything can be done almost instantaneously.

It is also a fact any new drug on the market is said to be in Phase 4 clinical trials. This is when we all essentially become participants in the trial if we take said drug and any adverse effects are monitored through agencies such as the MHRA then collated into longer term affects down the line.

Here is a to show how the Oxford vaccine in particular managed to be developed in record time. It’s cute and animated, you’ll love it.

Of course, if you've invented a time machine and can zip 10,15 years into the future to check, please do let me know.

Don’t be salty. I imagine if we all took the same anti vaxx stance as you, then in 10-15 years we will be living in a sort of post apocalyptic Mad Max era due to a rampant disease, destruction of global economies and complete disregard for anyone but ourselves. But I always have had an active imagination...[/quote]
🙏 🙌🏻

It is also a fact any new drug on the market is said to be in Phase 4 clinical trials

Yeap and that is the stage we are at with these vaccines, which is why they cannot be mandatory. Lots of us are more than happy to take a chance with them, but with informed consent, none of this pretending that only crazed anti-vaxxers who believe the royal family are lizards could possibly question the safety of these vaccines.

@x2boys

I don't think anyone,s going to hold people down for a vaccine ,I have sadly been part of team injecting mentally unwell people against their will and it's distressing for everyone ,that's very different to not allowing unvaccinated people to attend events as obviously they have a choice wether to vaccinate or not.

Not by much IF it includes work places and schools....

If you are offered a vaccine and choose to refuse, you are making a conscious to remain a danger to people who are unable to be vaccinated in society and people who have been vaccinated and unknown to then are not effectively protected by it.

That is fine in general society because those people have the responsibility to protect themselves, are aware that people have not been vaccinated, and go about their daily lives at their own risk.

However, there are situations where people have no to defend themselves. Situations where they are forced against their will as it were. If you are in hospital after an accident, giving birth, falling in the street, if you are at school, if you are elderly and have a care worker visit, if you need to go to a doctors, or need to have someone attend your home due to disability, are stopped in the street for no reason by the police, or are approached by a security guard in a shop.

All these people have no choice. The only person in that equation that has a choice is the person who is providing in care. They are also the only person who is in a position of responsibility in those cases.

All people in a position of where they can impose themselves on others without that other person having the ability to remove themselves and protect themselves, like those outlined above, should be offered a vaccine and if they refuse they should be placed on paid leave. They should then be issued with a written warning that it has been brought to managements attention that they are actively endangering patient/children whatever and asked to remedy the endangerment of those people who are under their care. If they then refuse to they should be sacked.

You cannot sanction forcing vulnerable people into the hands of medical staff/teachers/carers who do not care about them and refuse to protect their safety. Nor can you sanction allowing people who can knowingly infect and kill the public to have the power to approach and physically restrain people.

So I say sack them all. There will be plenty of cleaning jobs in schools at night, and plenty of lorries to be loaded and orders to be picked in retail. They can work where its far harder for them to inflict damage on others.

I cannot fathom people who believe people who have to turn up to work to pay the bills should be forced to expose themselves to a life threatening disease because they happen to work in hospitality or events or air travel. Their employers are well within their rights to protect their staff by insisting on vaccination for customers.

@timeisnotaline

I cannot fathom people who believe people who have to turn up to work to pay the bills should be forced to expose themselves to a life threatening disease because they happen to work in hospitality or events or air travel. Their employers are well within their rights to protect their staff by insisting on vaccination for customers.

Absolutely. However, a customer can shop elsewhere. A patient in a hospital, a person walking to work approached by a policeman, a child in school, or an elderly relative in a care home have no choice whatsoever. They are being forced to interact with someone who is not vaccinated if that person chooses to refuse a vaccine and then forces themselves upon people knowing that they are helpless and cannot refuse.

@Eileithyiaa
The Ebola vaccine is a multiagency success story

www.who.int/news/item/12-01-2021-unicef-who-ifrc-and-msf-announce-the-establishment-of-a-global-ebola-vaccine-stockpile

However, a customer can shop elsewhere

Well they could, but once one agency declares no vaccine no travel, they won’t be able to shop elsewhere, which is the point isn’t it?

Who wants potentiometer known preventable disease on a flight? Some airlines prevent children with chicken pox getting on flights for the same reason. I’m sure there are other risks airlines won’t take.

It’s never been any different.

@BluebellsGreenbells

However, a customer can shop elsewhere

Well they could, but once one agency declares no vaccine no travel, they won’t be able to shop elsewhere, which is the point isn’t it?

Who wants potentiometer known preventable disease on a flight? Some airlines prevent children with chicken pox getting on flights for the same reason. I’m sure there are other risks airlines won’t take.

It’s never been any different.

That was my point to the poster. A business has every right to refuse access to any customer they choose. Discrimination on medical grounds (not having a vaccine) is dodgy territory, but that can be challenged in the courts. However, of nurses, doctors, care staff, teachers, police, all get a free pass on being permitted to choose to force themselves upon others against their will, there is no way a restaurant will be able to discriminate without being sued into oblivion for discrimination. You have to force those you have already given the power to do harm to others first, before society will move in relative unison against the remainder.

Fuck that's really shitty grammar.
There really should be an edit function.

How about we have flights for people with vaccine and flights for people without. Served by people without vaccine etc. cheaper hopefully as well ))

Its communistic indeed. State knows best and citizens treat the state like a friendly mummy and daddy who knows best

How on earth is it "state knows best" when you acknowledge that these decisions are being taken by private commercial companies?

@Embra

How about we have flights for people with vaccine and flights for people without. Served by people without vaccine etc. cheaper hopefully as well ))

Because those flights have to land, and those passengers then expect to be able to eat in a hotel, travel in taxis, and infect as many people as they can without giving a F.

Now, if you force them to stay in their room in a hotel for 14 days after they land, then let them have their holiday, and you force them to stay in a hotel in their room on their return for 14 days, and then let them go home, I can see that as a reasonable precaution. And if they can afford six weeks off work and a six weeks hotel bill, to get two weeks on a beach, then let them. They'll need it to recuperate from living for for four weeks on daily food packages, and if they don't we can always detain them on medical grounds.

@timeisnotaline

I cannot fathom people who believe people who have to turn up to work to pay the bills should be forced to expose themselves to a life threatening disease because they happen to work in hospitality or events or air travel. Their employers are well within their rights to protect their staff by insisting on vaccination for customers.

Surely the best way to protect staff is to ensure they are the ones vaccinated? You can’t control, say foreign tourists or children too young for vaccine but still carrying...etc.

@SarahBellam

But why wouldn’t you want to be vaccinated? Do you want this to drag on for another few years?

This ..what are the other options?

@Arobase

Its communistic indeed. State knows best and citizens treat the state like a friendly mummy and daddy who knows best

How on earth is it "state knows best" when you acknowledge that these decisions are being taken by private commercial companies?

It isn't. Arobase doesn't understand the word 'communist'. When private commercial companies act in concert with government to enforce change in society, it is called 'fascism.'

Surely the best way to protect staff is to ensure they are the ones vaccinated? You can’t control, say foreign tourists or children too young for vaccine but still carrying...etc.
Yes you can. You quarantine them in hotels for two weeks before you let them out on the streets, and once they are on the streets, you allow businesses to choose who they sell goods and services to and who they do not. Simples.

@ElliFAntspoo

Surely the best way to protect staff is to ensure they are the ones vaccinated? You can’t control, say foreign tourists or children too young for vaccine but still carrying...etc. Yes you can. You quarantine them in hotels for two weeks before you let them out on the streets, and once they are on the streets, you allow businesses to choose who they sell goods and services to and who they do not. Simples.

That’s the worst way to do it though. Just vaccinate the staff. Even in quarantine, there will be staff interacting with the people in quarantine.

More healthy under 60s have died on the road during the pandemic than have died of Covid.

I don't understand the relevance of that comparator. I don't want healthy under 60s to die on the road, so why would that make me complacent about a similar number of healthy under 60s dying of covid on top of the original road deaths? If, say, 2000 people under 60 die each year on the roads, and one day it's reported that there's been a dreadful terrorist incident as a result of which 1500 people have died, would we really be saying "Meh, it's less than die on the roads, I don't see why we need to take tough steps against terrorism?"

Agree @Arobase has no idea what communism is.

@PlanDeRaccordement, are you saying I have no idea what communism is, or that OP has no idea?

More healthy under 60s have died on the road during the pandemic than have died of Covid

(1) We take lots of precautions against people dying on the roads, and we have reduced the numbers considerably in the last 50 years. This involves lots of restrictions on freedom too!

(2) Do only healthy under-60s matter? 'Healthy' in this context does not mean 'not at death's door' or even 'able to live a normal life'. It means having NO known pre-existing condition. That at once excludes 40% of the population! 23% of the population are over 60. Even taking into account that there is some overlap between over-60s and those with pre-existing conditions, you are dismissing about half the British population as irrelevant.

(3) It's not just dying that's the risk. A significant number of survivors will have long Covid and possibly permanent health impairment.

(4) If the NHS is overwhelmed, people will be more likely to die of other conditions, including road accidents, which might otherwise be treated successfully.