Fully Vaccinated until…?

[Thewiseoneincognito]

With the ‘sacking’ of 60,000 care workers today due to being unvaccinated it’s got me wondering how this will play out moving forward and what system would need to be adopted to manage and monitor people’s vaccination status as the months roll on.

What will happen to those that are fully vaccinated now but who may choose to not have a booster? At what point will people be deemed unvaccinated, or is that it? Two doses and irrespective of waning immunity you’re still to be considered double vaxxed for…life?

As time goes on and immunity wanes in younger age groups will they still be motivated to take boosters if life has seemingly regained a sense of ‘normality’ without restrictions in place? I can’t help but feel having varying levels of immunity throughout the population is not going to be a maintainable equilibrium long term, after all we would be creating opportunities for the virus to thrive as vaccination wears off.

Will employers ever be in a position to sack you if you’re immunity has ‘waned’ and hasn’t been boosted? Thoughts?

I've been wondering that. I'm undecided as to whether I'll have a booster or not, and if I have this one I won't be having one every 6 months/annually for the rest of my days! I do wonder what restrictions this will put on me and others in the same boat.

Work wise it shouldn't affect me as I work in an office but I'm sure it'll be used as an excuse to bring in more restrictions at some point.

Enforcing such drastic action like making thousands unemployed for not taking a vaccine that we know its effectiveness decreases I can only assume that boosters would also be mandated too

If boosters aren't mandated then all this was for naught. As you say, waning immunity will negate the vaccine after a year or so.
On the other hand, now the infrastructure has been put in place authorities may be in a position to better monitor undesirable behaviours. For example, cigarette and alcohol purchased could be monitored and limited where necessary. I.e your electronic 'covid passport' could be scanned at point of sale and the transaction only allowed to go ahead if it was permitted. It could also put the brakes on things like panic buying. Obviously this requires the app to be scanned at point if sale, not point if entry, but this isn't a huge leap from existing technology.
With phone payment the whole thing could be one touch and go transaction. No faffing about, unless someone is buying things they shouldn't be.
It would help control DV, drink driving and health costs if people could not just buy how much booze they wanted.

My friend works in care try have been told that they must have any boosters also

The government is only thinking about how to get through this winter without the NHS breaking.

So they want recent vaccination of frontline care and NHS staff now.

The future can take care of itself.

My guess is that priority groups will get annual autumn booster shots.

The highly vulnerable (the 500,000 in the 3rd primary group) will get 6 monthly shots is springboard and autumn)

And younger non-occupationally-qualified just a primary course as it's so mmuch less severe a disease for them

For example, cigarette and alcohol purchased could be monitored and limited where necessary.

Well that would be a big blow to the tax coffers. If it reduced usage, that is. I mean, smoking in particular is a win win. Studies have shown it is a net gain to the economy - high taxes + lower social care and pension costs.

As for alcohol. As if booze guzzling MPs would want their intake monitored. Those taxpayer subsided bars at the houses of parliament do a roaring trade.

Wrt the UK's belated catching up with the rest of the world, on vaccine mandates for those working with the most vulnerable. Utterly horrifying to think there are as many as 60,000 unsafe carers.

It's high time we paid better and offered decent working conditions. We need suitable people in such a valuable job. We shouldn't have to leave our most vulnerable in the hands of people unwilling to take precautions to protect them.

Unsafe care is not care, and hospitals and care homes have a duty of care to their vulnerable patients and residents.

60,000 have been sacked today? really?

Oh give over. Once this winter and spring is over and we come out (relatively) unscathed then COVID jabs will become like flu jabs are now

Strongly recommended for frontline NHS and care staff, for over 50’s and the vulnerable

Anything else is unworkable. There will be a number of COVID deaths per year that is “acceptable” like there are now for endemic respiratory illnesses

Any other yap about lifestyle monitoring is crazy talk

Truly shocking to think there were so many - 60,000 - unsuitable people working with our most vulnerable. Unprepared to take life and health saving vaccines to protect their vulnerable residents.

If ever there was an argument for improved pay and working conditions it's this.

We need to value this vital job - the care of our most vulnerable - and ensure we employ only those suited to the role.

Our most vulnerable deserve safe care.

@Hardybloodyhar

If boosters aren't mandated then all this was for naught. As you say, waning immunity will negate the vaccine after a year or so. On the other hand, now the infrastructure has been put in place authorities may be in a position to better monitor undesirable behaviours. For example, cigarette and alcohol purchased could be monitored and limited where necessary. I.e your electronic 'covid passport' could be scanned at point of sale and the transaction only allowed to go ahead if it was permitted. It could also put the brakes on things like panic buying. Obviously this requires the app to be scanned at point if sale, not point if entry, but this isn't a huge leap from existing technology. With phone payment the whole thing could be one touch and go transaction. No faffing about, unless someone is buying things they shouldn't be. It would help control DV, drink driving and health costs if people could not just buy how much booze they wanted.

Are you saying that’s a good thing?

@Tealightsandd I wouldn’t call anyone who was prepared to work through a pandemic with minimal/substandard ppe and no available vaccine “unsuitable” carers tbh. I admire and appreciate them (as most people did until recently). I think it’s appalling that they’ve been treated like this.

I admire and appreciate the majority of carers - those prepared to provide safe care to their vulnerable residents.

What happened to “clap for carers” ?

Most of them have had COVID. Some of them have fucking died from it, having caught it looking after your granny. I believe everyone should have a choice. Even the dispensable minimum-waged.

If ever there was an argument for improved pay and working conditions it's this.

We need to value this vital job - the care of our most vulnerable - and ensure we employ only those suited to the role.

First time I've ever agreed with anything you've said on the Covid topic but yes hear hear!

I've consistently called for better - and safer - working conditions. Including proper and sufficient supply of PPE.

Admire and appreciate with decent pay and employment conditions.

In return for decent pay and condition, staff must be prepared to provide safe care - including taking all sensible decent precautions. That means, amongst other measures, getting vaccinated (small minority of genuine medical exemption excepted).

The people throwing vaccine-refusing care staff onto the scrap heap …have you actually listened to their reasoning ?

It is not a form of universal basic income. It is not something to keep people off benefits.

The job is a vital one. It's for people to care (safely) for the vulnerable.

We need to change our attitudes towards important jobs like caring.

Employers have a responsibility to treat carers well. Equally carers have a responsibility to take precautions (including vaccines) to protect their vulnerable residents.

@Tealightsandd if you’re genuinely concerned about patient care then you would focus more on testing all carers, regardless of their vaccine status because, as you are well aware, the vaccine is great at protecting the individual from serious illness but it doesn’t prevent someone from contracting or transmitting the virus. You would also recognise that some carers are already immune after being infected doing their job and are not a risk to their patients either.

The job is to care for the most vulnerable. If you are not prepared to meet the simple job requirements that will enable safe care, then you're not suitable for that job.

Care homes have a duty of care to their vulnerable residents. Unlike the staff, who can find another job, these extremely vulnerable residents have no choice in needing care.

They have the right to safe care.

@bumbleymummy

I'm not saying it wouldn't be without concerns, just that it would be useful. most people can think of behaviours they'd like to see curbed.
I can't see how a system that is useful can be designed and implemented at great expense and upheaval, only to be abandoned 1 or 2 years later, because it's original purpose has expired. That never, ever happens. If a system is useful, especially to the government, it will be used. Tell me I'm wrong.

It's completely shocking that people have lost their livelihood because they exercised their human rights to decide what goes into their bodies. Anyone who thinks they deserved to be sacked better hope they don't have any elderly parents needing care anytime soon.....

@bumbleymummy

I agreed with you on the testing on a different thread yesterday.

Of course all sensible infection control measures are required when it comes to caring for our most vulnerable. So, testing, good PPE, vaccines, etc.

As for apparent natural immunity. Too risky to rely on that unknown. Not when it comes to our most vulnerable. This is a new disease, possibly one that has escaped from a lab. Natural immunity might not work against new strains or mutations.

@Hardybloodyhar no thank you. I prefer freedom to people judging me on my lifestyle choices and deciding what behaviour needs to be ‘curbed’.

@Tealightsandd clearly we have very different ideas about what ‘safe care’ actually entails. Simply ‘being vaccinated’ doesn’t tick all the boxes in my book. I’d have no problems with an unvaccinated carer. If it was safe enough for them to work with vulnerable patients last year then it’s just as safe now, if not safer because the vulnerable patients have been vaccinated themselves.

@AnyFucker

Oh give over. Once this winter and spring is over and we come out (relatively) unscathed then COVID jabs will become like flu jabs are now

Strongly recommended for frontline NHS and care staff, for over 50’s and the vulnerable

Anything else is unworkable. There will be a number of COVID deaths per year that is “acceptable” like there are now for endemic respiratory illnesses

Any other yap about lifestyle monitoring is crazy talk

The only way we will maintain an ‘acceptable’ number of Covid deaths is through continuous immunity which is Only possible with regular vaccination boosters. So with that in mind, at what point will those who don’t want a booster be considered unvaccinated once again? Will we have a time frame to say our immunity has waned? Will here be judgement like there is towards the unvaccinated now?

‘Did you hear, so and so is not boosted…!’

If people want their freedoms then that will surely come with a price of boosters otherwise we are back to square one with Covid causing severe illness again which we all know results in restrictions.

I’m curious to know how this is going to play out over the coming months, I’m assuming some protocol will have to be implemented before the April NHS deadline. If it’s going to be mandated it will need to be a robust system with checks and balances in place for everyone.

^Natural immunity might not work against new strains or mutations.

Just like the vaccine then?

You’re happy enough to accept that the vaccine doesn’t prevent someone from contracting/transmitting the virus but immunity after infection is ‘too risky’? Double standards.

We’re not going to agree on this. Let’s leave it there.