Employer disadvantaging and threatening staff who haven’t had the vaccine

[MrsFCastle]

My partner works in health and social care. He isn’t an anti vaxxer. Just feels it’s too soon. His employer is furious and is threatening to stop offering shifts if they don’t get it. I’m genuinely concerned about his job security. Can they do this? Helpful replies only please. This isn’t a thread about anti/pro vax.

Good for the employer. If one of my elderly relative, or relative with a disability, I wouldn't want your DH to look after them. Everyone in care should be vaccinated. End of. If they want to find another job so be it.

@Sadsiblingatsea

Surely forcing employees to have invasive medical procedures is illegal? Where is the precedent for this?

It's a vaccine, not an invasive medical Procedure - they're not asking for his kidney!!

Millions of vulnerable people have had it and haven't turned orange or had a leg drop off. I'm sure he'll be fine 🙄

It's standard for healthcare workers to be required to have certain vaccinations and apart from that, it's just the decent thing to do when you work with vulnerable people.

What's he waiting for??

Providing vaccination proof has always been a pre-requesting of employment in healthcare. You have to have Hep B vaccs done, as well as all the childhood ones. I had to have a third MMR as the date of my first one wasn’t legible on the photo copy of my 25+ year old GP record.

Covid is no different and rightly so.

*requisite

DD did a 10 week volunteering stint on the children's ward at our local hospital during her gap year. She had to provide proof of her vaccinations even then.

To everyone saying that I am anti-vaccine and therefore have no validity. I am fully vaccinated and so are my children, however, I don’t agree with taking a vaccine that the majority of the population will only have mild symptoms from and is still only authorised for emergency use and not fully tested on the long term effects. And as I’ve already said the vaccine won’t stop transmission or is getting it so what exactly am I getting it for then?

They have already tested the Phizer vaccine on rats and it showed a decline in fertility but because it was in the perimeters they allow it isn’t reported as a problem. To me that’s ludicrous.

@NicolaC17 you have repeatedly stated that you believe the vaccine won't stop transmission or reduce the chance of you getting the virus. This is untrue. To start with we did not know what the impacts might be, now we have data that proves it does reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic cases of Covid19, and also reduces transmission rates. I could give you loads of links, but here is just one.

inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-19-vaccines-one-dose-reduce-transmission-phe-883638

@Flev
Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine. This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.

It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission. And that is not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment.

But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say “what other treatments are there?“ The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARSCOV2.

If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell.

It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology - it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package. So we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine.

As a result it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say “we are going to fight the vaccine”.

If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick… 80% of the people exposed to SARSCOV2 are asymptomatic carriers. 80% of people who get this injected into them experience a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response.

In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick and having your own cells be the thing that get you sick. When the paymaster for the distribution of information happens to be the industry that’s doing the distributing, we lose.

Because the only narrative is the one that will be compensated by the people writing the check. That goes for our politicians… and our media - it has been paid for - if you follow the money you realize there is no non-conflicted voice on any network.”

@NicolaC17 can you also please provide a credible link to back up your assertions that studies of the vaccine on rats showed any degree of impact on fertility? This government report (scroll down to section 5.3) states clearly that there were no impacts, and the study followed through to 21 days after birth.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine

@NicolaC17

To everyone saying that I am anti-vaccine and therefore have no validity. I am fully vaccinated and so are my children, however, I don’t agree with taking a vaccine that the majority of the population will only have mild symptoms from and is still only authorised for emergency use and not fully tested on the long term effects. And as I’ve already said the vaccine won’t stop transmission or is getting it so what exactly am I getting it for then?

They have already tested the Phizer vaccine on rats and it showed a decline in fertility but because it was in the perimeters they allow it isn’t reported as a problem. To me that’s ludicrous.

I have to be honest, for someone who claims to not be an anti vaxxer you are sure sounding like one.

It doesn’t stop transmission no, but it is thought to slow it, and it gives much milder symptoms, resulting in less hospitalisations, and an ability to free us from lock down, and the issues lock down brings, from economic to mental health to lack of care in many sectors, from gp, to physical addictions service on.

That’s why you’re getting it. Not for you. But for the wider good. That’s why we get every vaccine.

Maybe look up Typhoid Mary? A historic American case. She was a carrier of typhoid, but was perfectly healthy and employable in any line of work she might choose. But with one exception. If she engaged in cooking for other people, she would kill them.
Nothing would persuade her, and no court would stop her. She insisted on getting jobs as a cook. She killed, and she started outbreaks of infection to kill indirectly.
Would her employers be right to let her continue risking health and life of their customers, if they found out she was a danger?
Yes or No?
Was she right to insist on doing that particular type of work?
Yes or No?
If you think you personally wouldn't much want to die of Typhoid spread by Mary, do you think anyone in contact with clinically vulnerable people should be allowed to kill, just because they want to?
Yes or No?
N.B. For benefit of the slow of comprehension, try to grasp that not, repeat not, all extremely vulnerable people can have protection from deliberate carriers and spreaders of deadly disease. For various medical reasons, they cannot, repeat, medically can not take the antivirus vaccine. Captain Tom could not. Others can not.

NicolaC17 nitpicking about what is and is not a vaccine isn't helpful, and is an antivaxxer tactic. Also the Oxford vaccine is a classic vaccine, so your arguments fall down right there.

Can I see a source for your figure of 80% clinical adverse events following vaccination, and preferably one including definitions? Because I've had the vaccine and I don't consider a sore arm and a couple of days feeling grotty to be a 'clinically adverse event' that is outside the norm. The flu jab has a similar side effect profile. Many medications currently in full use have side effect profiles which are far, far worse.

Remembering that medical records are rightly private in the UK, can anyone who "wouldn't want the unvaccinated looking after their relative" tell us how they'd actually know?

I can just about see that care home managers (or whoever) will avoid discussing their problems with families and declare airily "Don't worry, we're all covered", but that doesn't get them any closer to the truth

So again, how could anyone except the employers know?

Classmates invented an ingenious punch
in the arm test to confirm vaccinatíon following the tb jab...presumably HR might have something to say about that method though?

@Bluntness100

This isn’t about forced vaccines but yes many countries request certain vaccines before any one is permitted in.

This is about an employer saying staff need to be vaccinated or you can’t work there. The choice is till the individuals. Even if for them it’s some how hard. It is nothing to do with the government.

From a government perspective we may see a requirement for visitors coming in to be vaccinated, but that’s a very different subject.

The op didn’t specifically say her partner was a care assistant dealing with the elderly. Either because he’s not or she knows the reaction to saying he’s dealing with elderly people in a care setting and is refusing to be vaccinated but demanding to keep his job and be let at them.

But if he is indeed dealing with vulnerable people my personal opinion is if he doesn’t want vaccinated them he should not be permitted to work there. He is free to make the choice he doesn’t want it. But the employer should make the choice not to give him any shifts.

37.5 hours a week is the standard working week for Admin and Clerical positions in the NHS - he could be a receptionist (so in contact with everybody who comes for an appointment/attends A&E), medical records clerk (so going into wards, collecting and distributing notes, going into cramped filing rooms where you work within a couple of feet of other clerks in unventilated areas), secretary (although that's not generally described as front line), IT support (so goes into everybody's offices, clinical areas, wards and anywhere else that has a computer), transport coordinator (so sees extremely vulnerable patients in person daily), ward clerk (so works on the ward in shifts), a Porter (so moves the patients around in extremely close contact) etc, etc, etc.

I think if he had been an HCP of any kind, the OP would have said he was medical staff.

I believe that this is something along the lines of a ward clerk or porter saying the YouTube videos he's watched have led him to conclude that it's too soon to vaccinate because mRNA sounds a bit scary. And, as a result, he's not being given shifts and is now crying discrimination rather than admit he's just a fool another victim of conspiracy/antivax misinformation.

@turquoisewaters

I can envisage families of vulnerable people insisting that the care givers are vaccinated

The vulnerable will have been vaccinated, so what's the point?

Because it’s only 87% in older vulnerable people (as opposed to 100% younger) and you still need to protect them? Also anyone with cancer or a week immune system may not be able to have the vaccine? And because you can still get a mild illness when vaccinated, (the protection is mainly against severe disease) which could cause damage?

Anyone who doesn’t care about these issues is in the wrong job

[quote NicolaC17]@Flev
Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine. This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.

It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission. And that is not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment.

But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say “what other treatments are there?“ The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARSCOV2.

If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell.

It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology - it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package. So we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine.

As a result it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say “we are going to fight the vaccine”.

If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick… 80% of the people exposed to SARSCOV2 are asymptomatic carriers. 80% of people who get this injected into them experience a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response.

In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick and having your own cells be the thing that get you sick. When the paymaster for the distribution of information happens to be the industry that’s doing the distributing, we lose.

Because the only narrative is the one that will be compensated by the people writing the check. That goes for our politicians… and our media - it has been paid for - if you follow the money you realize there is no non-conflicted voice on any network.”[/quote]
This is really worth reading everyone, so that you can see the classic antivaxxer stance.

A pile of misinformation, delusion, irrelevancy and outright lies.

And always ending on the Big Pharma >klaxon< that the whole epidemic is so scientists, media, politicians, doctors & nurses (all of them, of course), care homes etc etc can get rich, 'cos they are 'in on it'.

Depends on his contract and at the very best he’s never going to get promoted etc if he’s in the boss’ bad books.... tricky one but have to say just have the vaccine.... I have many many colleagues who would jump at the chance to have it considering all kids are back in school on the 8th.... can they swap and have his slot?

[quote NicolaC17]@Flev
Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine. This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.

It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission. And that is not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment.

But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say “what other treatments are there?“ The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARSCOV2.

If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell.

It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology - it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package. So we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine.

As a result it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say “we are going to fight the vaccine”.

If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick… 80% of the people exposed to SARSCOV2 are asymptomatic carriers. 80% of people who get this injected into them experience a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response.

In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything. This is about getting you sick and having your own cells be the thing that get you sick. When the paymaster for the distribution of information happens to be the industry that’s doing the distributing, we lose.

Because the only narrative is the one that will be compensated by the people writing the check. That goes for our politicians… and our media - it has been paid for - if you follow the money you realize there is no non-conflicted voice on any network.”[/quote]
I've read a LOT of absolute crap in this past year, but FMD that pile of 💩 💩 is right up there with the biggest pile of 💩 I have ever read.

You should be ashamed of yourself peddling that pile of utter, utter bullshit

I'd report your post except people should read what utter bullshit people are pushing in their vulnerable family & friends.

@Dullardmullard

You know even if you get the vaccine you can still catch or infect others with Covid. It isn’t a magical cure all.

🙄🙄🙄. Wearing a seatbelt isn't a guarantee you won't be hurt/killed in a car accident. It doesn't mean it's not the best possible prevention we have

@Haffiana

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous wouldn't it.

People like that should be made to work on Covid wards - scrubbing toilets & floors (wouldn't trust them near patients)

Again, I make the point that some jobs carry the need for the worker to be prevented from harming others. Does anyone think an asymptomatic typhoid carrier has the right to insist on working in catering? She can choose other jobs.

Does someone who chooses not to disclose the results of his police check have the right to insist on working with children?
Nobody forces him to have the check.
But he can choose to work in other jobs, if he chooses not to disclose.

Does an alcoholic have the right to insist on driving ? Nobody forces him to sober up and nobody forces him to take a breathalyser. Unless he drives. If he does, he must choose other ways to get around, where his drunken state is not a risk to others.

The fact that some behaviour was not previously a problem, at the time of the contract, ought never to take precedence over safety. Possibly a certain brand of cough medicine is discovered to have a dangerous side effect of distorting height perception, meaning crane drivers and scaffolders must agree never to use it, because there is a risk they will kill passers-by or colleagues. Or perhaps the previous safety netting procedure is discovered to be unsafe, and operatives must change their habits. Those who are on new contracts will have it written in. But those on old contracts could not expect the employer to permit them to work in the old way.

If you want to argue that the mRNA vaccine isn't really a vaccine (I've hear it called 'gene therapy') then have the Oxford vaccine, or the Johnson vaccine when that's approved.

"In a free society you get freedom of choice, not freedom from the consequences of those choices."
This!!!

Personally if you work in health and social care and won't have the vaccine then change your job. No one wants to be at risk especially the vunerable.