Mandatory vaccines for care workers now law.

[MercyBooth]

Big Brother Watch
@BigBrotherWatch
·
2h
Police cars revolving lightBREAKING

Mandatory vaccines for care workers is now law. Millions more workers will be affected.

The House of Lords passed the new law after just 90 minutes debate, with a regret motion noting there is insufficient evidence for it and that the severity of impact is unknown.

twitter.com/BigBrotherWatch/status/1417573871130234883?s=20

Carageenan nasal spray several times per day- in the smaller pilot this was more frequent but in the larger study it was reduced 4x daily and ivermectin 12mg weekly

Genuine question: if ivermectin was eventually found to be effective in preventing covid, would it need to be taken daily/weekly ad infinitum? If so, how can it be compared to a vaccine?

There is already computer modelling of the interaction between IVM and a protein so we will have to agree to disagree on whether it is likely to be effective.

more reading of the FLCCC website?

@foxandbee

Carageenan nasal spray several times per day- in the smaller pilot this was more frequent but in the larger study it was reduced 4x daily and ivermectin 12mg weekly

Genuine question: if ivermectin was eventually found to be effective in preventing covid, would it need to be taken daily/weekly ad infinitum? If so, how can it be compared to a vaccine?

this was ivermectin + seaweed extract...

But yes, ivermectin has been pretty much ruled out as prophylactic for many reasons including the one you describe.

What oxford are testing it as is as an at home treatment for vulnerable people (or non vulnerable with more severe symptoms) to see if it prevents the progression to more severe disease and hospitalisation.

It's a difficult one. Whilst I think getting vaccinated is the 'right' thing to do, I also think it should be a choice.

Obviously I'd unquestionable prefer those caring for my relatives to be vaccinated. As the role involves clise contact with the very vulnerable I'd fully support it being mandatory to be accepted for the job (along with flu while we're at it). If you don't want the jab, don't apply. Simple.

But for those already employed it's a different matter to be faced with - for those faced with losing their job, but also for those who rely on their care and what impact having to re-recruit will have on them. I'm a bit on the fence with it - as especially with the latter I'm not sure which is worse of two evils

Thanks @leafyygreens.

@MinkeDinkie

It's a difficult one. Whilst I think getting vaccinated is the 'right' thing to do, I also think it should be a choice.

Obviously I'd unquestionable prefer those caring for my relatives to be vaccinated. As the role involves clise contact with the very vulnerable I'd fully support it being mandatory to be accepted for the job (along with flu while we're at it). If you don't want the jab, don't apply. Simple.

But for those already employed it's a different matter to be faced with - for those faced with losing their job, but also for those who rely on their care and what impact having to re-recruit will have on them. I'm a bit on the fence with it - as especially with the latter I'm not sure which is worse of two evils

As someone in care who is vaccinated, I think that with proper planning and some education etc, for example making vaccination a 'thing' in care, it's achievable to ensure that care workers are all vaccinated, but this 'get it or get out' feels like bullying and passing the buck for the failings in care back onto the care staff and many have just had enough, many are exhausted and traumatised from the last 18 months of what they've had to do, and the way this is being done is just a step too far for many, already demoralised staff who are really questioning if what they've been through, what is still to come, as well as the regular pressures of the job are really worth it for minimum wage in most cases, especially when they're being told they've no right to even question or take time to make an informed decision about something that could affect them for the rest of their lives - and that includes covid as well as the vaccination.

Keep battering them down won't solve this problem, it'll make it worse.

@ivykaty44 and @foxandbee

Sorry, just re-reading the thread and realise I ignored your queries re the vaccines still being tested.

Yep, testing to continue until 2023, hence the “emergency roll out”. Here’s evidence for Pfizer, you can easily find evidence for the others if you look on the internet, it’s not a secret clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1

[quote MillyMolly123]**@ivykaty44* and @foxandbee*

Sorry, just re-reading the thread and realise I ignored your queries re the vaccines still being tested.

Yep, testing to continue until 2023, hence the “emergency roll out”. Here’s evidence for Pfizer, you can easily find evidence for the others if you look on the internet, it’s not a secret clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1[/quote]
The pfizer vaccine has regulatory approval. Further phase III follow up for additional groups and adjustments to vaccines for new variants are continuing as standard. The vaccines being rolled out in general use right now have regulatory approval because they have the required safety and efficacy data -www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19.

It is standard for post-authorization follow up to continue for newly developed drugs and vaccines. This was the case for the HPV vaccine for example, with additional data published a decade after it was rolled out, but you didn't see this level of scrutiny.

@leafyygreens Ok, but the Government changed legislation to permit such quick approval, no?

These are unprecedented times and people are worried.

Also isn’t one of phase three’s purposes to identify rare side effects?

@leafyygreens also, I missed out the most important bit… covid vaccines are being mandated for one group of people. I don’t believe the same is true for HPV. HPV is “offered” not enforced.

[quote MillyMolly123]@leafyygreens also, I missed out the most important bit… covid vaccines are being mandated for one group of people. I don’t believe the same is true for HPV. HPV is “offered” not enforced.[/quote]
yup and that's a debate to be had, which being discussed on this thread

but it's important that it's done with facts rather than misinformation, otherwise the salient points get lost

@leafyygreens Yes, but without phase three complete, can anyone fully understand the long term effects, no matter how big or small?

If not, the vaccine should not be mandated. That’s what I’m trying to say.

[quote MillyMolly123]@leafyygreens Yes, but without phase three complete, can anyone fully understand the long term effects, no matter how big or small?

If not, the vaccine should not be mandated. That’s what I’m trying to say.[/quote]
as I have said, the phase 3 trial has been completed with all primary endpoints reached

www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

@leafyygreens but they’re still following some participants until 2023, in part to better assess long term risks - or have I misunderstood that?

[quote MillyMolly123]@leafyygreens but they’re still following some participants until 2023, in part to better assess long term risks - or have I misunderstood that?[/quote]
yup as I said follow up will continue - this is standard and I gave the example of HPV

@leafyygreens If feel like we’re going round in circles here … this will be my last one for the night as bed is calling.

As I said before, in that case, it shouldn’t be mandated for anyone just yet (in my opinion, of course)

@ZednotZee

The hepatitis vaccine has been in use since 1986. So when I started my degree in 2007 I was confident regarding its safety profile.

Hepatitis is a risk posed to practitioners due to the nature of their public facing role.

Its not a valid comparison with the covid situation but don't let that stop you.

And what's the "safety profile" of catching Covid?

Unless there are particular extenuating circumstances for not having the vaccine, I struggle not to feel contempt for care workers who refuse to be vaccinated.

@ForeverAlone1987

I thought the vaccine was to prevent yourself getting seriously ill with covid? I dont think this vaccine stops you spreading it. So shouldnt it be down to the care workers as to whether they risk getting seriously ill? Someone correct me if i am wrong with my first sentence, just incase ive completely gotten it wrong lol

Vaccines do reduce transmission. The message that they don't is a distortion favoured by anti-vaxxers who have wrongly twisted: "vaccines don't stop all transmission" into "vaccines don't stop transmission at all!"

www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-work

Not surprised by this.

And what's the "safety profile" of catching Covid? hmm

Probably similar to catching hepatitis or flu for the vulnerable who would be more susceptible to covid. Shame we're not routinely vaccinated against those isn't it?

Unless there are particular extenuating circumstances for not having the vaccine, I struggle not to feel contempt for care workers who refuse to be vaccinated.

I think a lot of people struggle not to feel contempt for care workers full stop, but are still more than happy leaving their elderly and vulnerable relatives in our care.

And what's the "safety profile" of catching Covid?

To be perfectly candid I don't worry one jot about catching covid.

As I said previously I have nursed throughout two covid outbreaks. A covid +ve resident pulled down my mask and spat in my face. Another vomited all over me.
This was before vaccines and when I was nursing in PPE which the RCN have stated to be wholly ineffectual.

I didn't catch Covid. I don't even entertain the thought that I am susceptible to it anymore.

Its not an indiscriminate virus. You realise this when you have dealt with it at close quarters on a couple of occasions.

@ZednotZee @Iquitit

twitter.com/sylvester_defoe/status/1418176853651730438?s=20 (screenshot of letter in tweet)

twitter.com/ShorthouseCarl/status/1417581003019898884?s=20

Carl
@ShorthouseCarl
·
Jul 20
Replying to
@AwakenedOf
When it first hit back in March, most carers ran out the door and left our care home with 60 residents with just 10 of us to look after them. I was one that slept for a month next to elderly sick with covid. Now I'm getting sacked. I work at sanctuary

@MercyBooth
I concur

90% of our staff tested +ve in January.
I worked an eighty seven hour week, back to back shifts plus dealing with IPC and PHE, residents, families and a staff team who were falling to pieces.
As one of only four staff who didn't test positive I hardly saw my children for seventeen days.

Now the government wants to sack me?

A healthcare professional with over a decade of experience?

Good luck replacing me with someone of something even appropriating the same calibre...

@Watchwoman

YES This is another thing covered in the book that must not be named

I think i know the book you're talking about. Has MN censored mention of it?

No. The book is A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth. Some posters have invented a myth that any mention of this book is forbidden on MN and will get zapped. No idea why. 🤯