Not allowed to do my sales job until fully vaccinated

[VioletUltraViolet]

I delayed getting my vaccination due to a genuine fear of vaccines and having already gotten Covid antibodies from having the virus. I have decided to get the vaccine now because I just want this crap over and done with and I accept my role in getting society back to a level of normality.

I am booked for my first dose today at 14:30 and second dose is booked for 9th feb 2022.

I am an estate agent. My work sent a group message to say that any unvaccinated staff can not conduct any face to face appointments until they are fully vaccinated. This means no opportunity to earn commission by listing properties or selling houses, so my salary will essentially drop from roughly 43k to 24k. This is because I earn so much from doing the appointments and 24k is my basic. I have a daughter to support and I know everyone is going to say it’s my fault for delaying my vaccination but I just can’t believe this forced vaccination is spilling out in to non medical non clinical work.

For context, I booked my vaccine last week before I knew about the work changes.

What’re people’s thoughts on this kind of approach? My vaccinated colleagues are shocked by this too.

@Crazycrazylady

Op the Johnson vaccine we used in Ireland is one dose ? Would that be an option to get it over quicker

Yes to this if possible ^

Instead every thread is jumped on by posters repeating their vaccine misinformation so any useful advice to the OP is lost in endless nonsense

@TopCatsTopHat

some people genuinely can't be vaccinated for valid medical reasons. Should those people be barred from working in any job that is customer facing?

Those are exactly the people who deserve the protection the rest of us can give them by getting vaccinated

Why not do similar studies in vaccinated and recovered people in addition to those done on vaccinated and unvaccinated people?

There already has been (which you've been linked to repeatedly) regarding reinfection @Beachcomber

REACT-2 are looking at transmission specifically in this situation.

I don't think there's any firm guidance on the Janssen vax, it was still being investigated 3 weeks ago. So there should be an update soon

www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-evaluating-data-booster-dose-covid-19-vaccine-janssen

@riveted1

Why not do similar studies in vaccinated and recovered people in addition to those done on vaccinated and unvaccinated people?

There already has been (which you've been linked to repeatedly) regarding reinfection @Beachcomber

REACT-2 are looking at transmission specifically in this situation.

Oh, don't make it too easy! I didn't know it had already been linked to for @Beachcomber

That whole study shows very clearly why it is so bloody difficult to identify and then measure infection rates. let alone break that down to a differnce between previously infected and vaccinated people.

Yes onlyafleshwound but that doesn't answer the question. If someone who cannot legitimately have the vaccine for medical reasons be barred from customer facing roles?

Will never understand why someone who isn't an expert in this particular thing, will look at research and complain people aren't doing it right.

Instead of thinking there might be reasons that a particular study hasn't been conducted, it's that all these scientists with decades of experience have missed something that PP has identified....

For @VioletUltraViolet apologies your thread has been derailed!

I think that is completely unfair because you haven't been given notice - care staff and NHS workers have been to ensure they had time to make a decision and not lose pay (ie they could at least plan to move roles) if they decided to not get vaccinated.

I would contact your HR if possible.

And just think how many times how many posters have said those words @riveted1.

I gave up pointing out the idiocy of Robert Peston for doing just that with an epidemiologist, on live TV! I wonder why that clip is now so very hard to find

@HeyDugeesCakeBadge

Yes onlyafleshwound but that doesn't answer the question. If someone who cannot legitimately have the vaccine for medical reasons be barred from customer facing roles?

If the employer has a valid reason for the mandation in the first place then they would be covered... and would as likely NOT be given dispensation because the risk assessment would say that their own vulnerability made it necessary to re-deploy them.

Very few businesses will, at this moment, have a cast iron reason, which is why it is important that @VioletUltraViolet discusses what is actually happening with her bosses. To see if there is a better compromise.

But, having said that, it can't really be a surprise to anyone that employers like estate agents are becoming increasingly worried about transmission in client houses, can it?

Then why quote the CDC at me?

Because both Pfizer and Moderna are American companies and they are primarily under the jurisdiction of the CDC and the FDA. And because it is true that the CDC has modified the language they use to communicate on the subject of vaccination since covid vaccines have been used.

And because I think this stuff is important.

I understand that we are in a pandemic and dealing with a difficult and frightening situation. I understand that we need and want solutions to that situation. But I think we should be vigilant with regards to dismantling too many barriers that exist for good reason. Classification of drugs and medicines matters. Currently we have vaccines which have been fast tracked and are being used in Europe under conditional marketing status and which had the CDC change their stance on the definition of vaccination.

Perhaps these vaccines will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread. And I hope that they do. But let us not throw caution to the wind because we want them to be our solution to this nightmare.

@riveted1

Why not do similar studies in vaccinated and recovered people in addition to those done on vaccinated and unvaccinated people?

There already has been (which you've been linked to repeatedly) regarding reinfection @Beachcomber

REACT-2 are looking at transmission specifically in this situation.

Sorry but I think you may have me mixed up with another poster.

Or maybe I'm more forgetful than I think (this is not impossible!).

I honestly don't see what those links / studies are. I'm not aware of studies comparing infection in vaccinated and recovered people and the mechanisms / rates of them transmitting disease.

because it is true that the CDC has modified the language they use to communicate on the subject of vaccination since covid vaccines have been used. Yes. THEY DO. But what does that have to do with the situation here or the realoity of a bloody vaccine? It would work as well if they called it a doughnut - a rose by a rose and all that!

As I said, you're taking a stab at sophistry but lack the internal logic to carry it through.

What you are caviling over is a novel vaccine fro a novel virus in the midst of a pandemic.

Some vaccines are based on age old technology.

Some are based on novel technology.

ALL have passed the usual tests and are in the final stage (that leads some idiots to continue describing them as 'experimental') that has lawyas been extended use and a weather eye on the data. Do you know how long that stage can be? The lifetime of the vaccine programme. So the polio vaccine is still watched on the same way. And all of the others, whilst they are still in use.

I think we should be vigilant Which we? Joe Bloggs, which would include you and me. Or scientists who know how to set up a study to find the results they are looking for?

If you mean Joe Bloggs then I fear the world you want us to live in. Ask questions, read research, demand more answers by all means, It would be a deaf, dumb and blind society that did not. But don't expect Joe to take any decisions on national programmes, beyond voting. That is far far outwith his remit. And yours. And mine for that matter.

All Joe can do is what he thinks is best for him... and then stop trying to explain what he doesn't understand. "I don't want it" is enough. The reams and reams of misunderstood science and disinformation is really not necessary for anyone, unless they are actively anti vaccine, anti science and anti expert. And gods only know there are enough of those around

Nope they were definitely linked to you on another thread @Beachcomber - one about mandatory vaccination

Two conducted by the CDC and one other.

As PPs have already explained, there are several reasons why the specific study you are saying should be done does not currently exist. REACT-2 (and probably many other cohorts) are collecting this data.

www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/the-react-2-programme/

The infographic is clear enough, isn't it? Read point 5

And then look at their publications

www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/real-time-assessment-of-community-transmission-findings/

@riveted1

Nope they were definitely linked to you on another thread *@Beachcomber* - one about mandatory vaccination

Two conducted by the CDC and one other.

As PPs have already explained, there are several reasons why the specific study you are saying should be done does not currently exist. REACT-2 (and probably many other cohorts) are collecting this data.

OK great. Could you link to what you are talking about because I nearly always click on and read things that people link to and I really don't see what you mean here.

No worries if not. I'll have a look myself.

Look at the post above yours

If you got covid and were hospitalised while working..technically the case would be a workplace infection and you would be able to Sue your employer...its a protection for them as well as if you infected a potential seller or buyer... these types of risk assessments are being done at corporate and board level...its not personal. But I understand its a financial pain..luckily a temporary one

[quote HoardingSamphireSaurus]www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/the-react-2-programme/

The infographic is clear enough, isn't it? Read point 5

And then look at their publications

www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/research-and-impact/groups/react-study/real-time-assessment-of-community-transmission-findings/[/quote]
And your point is what exactly?

Sorry but your posts are a little too cryptic for me.

If you have interesting and helpful information why don't you just share it / quote it?

The infographic you link to is an infographic. It is not data that legitimizes limiting the freedom or ability to earn income of covid recovered people.

[quote Sunshinelollypops8]@VioletUltraViolet please go onto the website power to the people and they have genuine legal templates stating why you wish to wait until you want to be vaccinated.
It has worked for many people I know.
Hope this helps.
Don't feel bullied into getting the vaccine if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
It doesn't stop the spread. It just protects the individual who's had the vaccine. So IMO it's completely your choice whether you want it or not. And if you don't people need to remember the Nuremberg code and respect your decision.
Hope this helps. [/quote]
ODFOD.

Op- this seems unfair. You are being vaccinated and it would have seemed more reasonable to offer a vaccine deadline not just suddenly say “too late” when it’s not like you can speed up the process now!
Unfortunately it sounds like you might have limited options BUT worth talking to any colleagues who have been there more than 2 years who aren’t fully vaccinated yet and see if they have sought advice. Hopefully they are also in the process

I did.

It's a simple infographic, signposted the final point and supplied a link to their real time publications. The headlines alone of which tell you enough about the data being collected.

Deeper reading will tell you why the data you want is very hard to collect (it would be hard to get passed ethics in the form you suggested) and how they are collecting similar data over time which should/might answer your question eventually.

I haven't paraphrased it or quote it as it isn't me who wants to know more, that was you. I retired from lecturing (science based subject) almost a decade ago.

[quote Coffeepot72]@Comefromaway I’m neither a doctor nor a scientist but I think an anti-vaxxer is more likely to spread COVID around an office than someone who is vaccinated?[/quote]
Maybe, but an argument could be made, and many of the responses on this thread indicate as much, that people are inappropriately relying on vaccination status as a safety net and indication of, well, safety. That leads to complacency and an artificial sense of personal safety and invulnerability.

From a risk assessment standpoint as it relates to this thread, being a viewer in a likely one off, short duration situation, a negative test regardless of vaccination status would be far more safe than simply knowing someone's vaccination status.

The damage to your employer’s reputation when it comes out that they allowed unvaccinated people to take appointments with clients would be pretty brutal.

They’ve stated their position, your choice is to accept it or move on.

please go onto the website power to the people and they have genuine legal templates

Power to the people are utter trash and I don't say that likely. Excerpts from their website:

Claiming the coronavirus have ingredients they most certainly do not...
INGREDIENTS
Formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80, Human Diploid Cells, Aluminium..

Falsely claiming vaccines cause autism
There are many scientific and medically peer reviewed studies proving the link between vaccines and autism

Falsely claiming vaccines haven't been tested or pregnant women and cause foetal death
Vaccines have never been tested on pregnant women. There is a 4250% increased risk of fetal death after the flu jab

As I said, they are utter utter trash. No wonder so many people are being sucked into this when there's so much misinformation out there.

The Nuremberg Code is also completely irrelevant to the current context.

To the @VioletUltraViolet - again I'm sorry yours and so many other threads are being derailed by anti-vax posters. I hope you are able to wade through and read some of the useful replies people have shared.

@Beachcomber

The infographic you link to is an infographic. It is not data that legitimizes limiting the freedom or ability to earn income of covid recovered people.

At no point has anyone said the REACT study should or could be used to inform policy. You seem to be putting words into PPs mouths.

You are repeatedly demanding a specific type of research should be conducted. Instead of considering that scientists would also like to do these studies (being limited by data & other constraints can be frustrating when you know exactly how a question could best be answered), you seem to assume you know something that has somehow slipped the minds of all these experts.

The replies to you explain why it would be extremely difficult given a) the ethical implications, and b) gathering a large enough sample to be meaningful