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!

Gosh, what a surprise!

You really should listen to scientists, not the media, in this country.

littlelove Google that quote and it only appears in links to companies specialising in AI and data management hoping to profit from the Covid pandemic, including Palantir to whom the government have granted access to all our NHS data, which is extremely valuable to them. Nowhere is the quote put in the context that these vaccines have been developed quickly because the initial research was already in place and have passed the appropriate safeguards. Wanting to track the big data on side effects that may appear in terms of the huge numbers who will have them long term is not the same as them not being safe in the first place.

In fact it is a perfect example of taking a quote out of context to fuel anti vaccine sentiment.

@bumbleymummy

Terrible idea. If their goal is actually to reduce risk rather than just virtue signaling then they should looking for be proof of immunity. People who haven’t been vaccinated can be immune through natural infection and those who are vaccinated may not be immune. We know how long natural acquired immunity lasts (6-8+ months) and we don’t know how long vaccine immunity lasts yet.

Right, so as well as a population-wide vaccination programme, we also need population-wide serology testing? It's just not viable.

@Ethelfromnumber73

we also need population-wide serology testing

Maybe some would be be willing to have the serology done privately?

@Ethelfromnumber73 or confirmation of having a positive diagnosis within the previous X months.

truly I have antibodies, still, from early March but many friends who were tested after illness in March don’t on a second testing, though T cells may or may not be another source of immunity. As far as I am concerned it means nothing, there is not enough proof you can’t get it a second time especially with variants around (Google Manaus) or that immunity persists. It helps a bit to go about life in a properly masked /socially distanced way and especially when we could meet with the family in other parts of the country i.e on’t moor, who have had it too (but back in early March, when it was so so rare 🤔😡) But they have already not hesitated to get the vaccine, and nor will we. It’s another layer of protection,not a substitute and I doubt very much when I do get to leave the country to see family elsewhere that it will be of any use to me.....

@Emilyontmoor

littlelove Google that quote and it only appears in links to companies specialising in AI and data management hoping to profit from the Covid pandemic, including Palantir to whom the government have granted access to all our NHS data, which is extremely valuable to them. Nowhere is the quote put in the context that these vaccines have been developed quickly because the initial research was already in place and have passed the appropriate safeguards. Wanting to track the big data on side effects that may appear in terms of the huge numbers who will have them long term is not the same as them not being safe in the first place.

In fact it is a perfect example of taking a quote out of context to fuel anti vaccine sentiment.

Hardly an example of taking a quote out of context! I quoted verbatim from the link I posted. The government contract itself states the following, so please don't try and paint me with anti-vaccine sentiment, that is certainly not the case. I am absolutely prepared to take the vaccine once it has passed the proper protocols in monitoring adverse effects. This is my personal choice.

From the contract with MHRA and Genpact (taken from the Official Journal of the EU):

"For reasons of extreme urgency under Regulation 32(2)(c) related to the release of a Covid-19 vaccine MHRA have accelerated the sourcing and implementation of a vaccine specific AI tool.

Strictly necessary — it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.

Reasons of extreme urgency — the MHRA recognises that its planned procurement process for the SafetyConnect programme, including the AI tool, would not have concluded by vaccine launch. Leading to a inability to effectively monitor adverse reactions to a Covid-19 vaccine.

Events unforeseeable — the Covid-19 crisis is novel and developments in the search of a Covid-19 vaccine have not followed any predictable pattern so far."

Doesn't give much about the Pfizer, wish they would tell us the 1s who had that vaccine

Little So that was why a search found nothing. Legal contracts are not related to real life, they are designed to protect the signees from just about every risk, and of course with a vaccine the providers and government know is safe and beneficial the lawyers get their own way. If of course you are entirely risk averse, as in never cross a road, and are convinced against all the evidence that Covid is not a risk, of death, or long Covid, then the slightest of risks would mean not getting this vaccine, even if your judgement of the risks of Covid are wrong and you pilot others at risk.. The rest of us have a more logical and community minded perspective

How does turning the UK into an authoritarian state = getting our freedom back

Nobody is talking about strapping people down and vaccinating them, just giving private businesses the right to refuse service or employment to those who have refused the vaccine for non medical reason.

Are you opposed to lockdown? Because that already represents a substantial restriction of freedoms, by my standards. I wouldn't normally be OK with the state telling me not to leave my house or entertain my relatives and friends there. If the state is going to overreach anyway, I'd rather they focused on overreaching in ways that actually help us get back to normal.

There’s a big difference between social interactions and bodily autonomy when it comes to putting restrictions on things.

@Kokeshi123

I wouldn't normally be OK with the state telling me not to leave my house or entertain my relatives and friends there

This is a mere temporary restriction of activities to enable infection control

Mandatory/coercive vaccination would be forcing someone to have (irreversible) medical treatment

Two very different things

[quote lightand]@Arobase
They couldnt "force" as in pin down and force.[/quote]
They never claimed that they could. That's a really weird interpretation: force is self-evidently not limited to physical force.

@lightand

Agree *@trulydelicious* Employers can do things, then someone takes them to an employment tribunal, to see if it was legal or not.

The legal process doesn't really work like that. Few people take a total gamble on how a new law is to be applied. Before taking a decision they will normally research what the relevant law actually says, and take legal advice. Given that statutes are written reasonably clearly and are subject to very well-established rules of statutory construction, it's not usually difficult to work out what the legal position is.

[quote trulydelicious]@Arobase

And yet specialist lawyers have said that it probably is. Do you know better

Well, your very 'factual' BBC piece (in your words) is quoting solicitors who are disputing this, so...

However, demanding staff are vaccinated would be unlawful in the "majority of circumstances", says Ella Bond, an employment lawyer at Harper James solicitors[/quote]
Well, they're quoting one solicitor. I've come across a number of articles on solicitors' websites saying something rather different. It's also not at all clear that the views of this one have been properly and fully represented, not least due to the rest of the quote which you've omitted:

"She says it could lead to unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. Exceptions could be if it was "job critical" for people to be vaccinated - for example care home workers, or roles requiring overseas travel."

Unfair dismissal would relate to people already employed who have been with them for more than two years, and I can see that employers would be on dodgy ground there. I suspect that most employers would try to transfer them away from customer facing roles.

However, discrimination could only apply in relation to disability discrimination and possibly discrimination on the basis of faith. And, as I understand it, most employers intending to go down this route fully intend to accept genuine exemptions, so the only people affected would be those who just don't fancy being vaccinated. It would be perfectly lawful to refuse to employ them for that reason (and also probably because they're not likely to be the brightest).

As for care home workers, those who feel strongly against taking the vaccine now, will just change jobs and move to a different field - perhaps making it more difficult for owners to recruit staff and pushing up costs?

Care home workers tend to lack qualifications. Where are all these jobs in different fields that they can move to so easily?

The government did enforce the smallpox vaccine many years ago. Didn't turn us into a communist state but did get rid of smallpox.

@Pissedoff1234

The government did enforce the smallpox vaccine many years ago. Didn't turn us into a communist state but did get rid of smallpox.

I didn't know this so looked it up. Seems it was just babies under 3 months and parents faced a fine for not complying. Two thirds of babies were vaccinated which still led to a fall in smallpox deaths.

I assure you that not all carers don't have qualifications.

This is not individual healthcare such as cancer treatment, a broken leg where the individual is impacted and there is no contagion.
Covid is a public health threat as it can be transmitted unknowingly
to a large number of people.
Once the vaccines are up and running it will be no different from any other vaccine.Everyone will eventually get a card to carry.
Of course there will be objectors so they will have to shop online arrange their own schooling etc
online, arrange their own schooling etc

Perhaps the most important fact in all this is that voluntary vaccination achieves higher rates, so whilst the emotionally fucked up bastards more authoritarian amongst you would like to 'force' people to do things, you'll be making a problem not solving it.

If you want to force others to do things, seek counseling as you really do have issues.

inquietant your point about voluntary vaccination may have been true before the era of anti-vaxxer conspiracy batshittery, but we aren't in Kansas any more. For whatever reason, people believe nonsense about this vaccine (and others). If we want out of COVID, we may temporarily have to be a little less precious about voluntary vaccination at least for those people who are in contact with ill and vulnerable patients. I don't have a problem with that, call me authoritarian.

@Justpassingtime1

Once the vaccines are up and running it will be no different from any other vaccine

Yes, but we are not there yet, although we will eventually be (most probably)

The difficulty in our town is that the anti vaxxers are the same people who socialise everywhere and don't give a damn. They don't accept the reality of covid so fuck everyone else's opinion. You can't force people to have it but you can deny them access to jobs where it matters. Aircraft, too, should be able to refuse then flights.

However, discrimination could only apply in relation to disability discrimination and possibly discrimination on the basis of faith

That is untested, and what presumably will be tested with several employment tribunals.