Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Not allowed to do my sales job until fully vaccinated

388 replies

VioletUltraViolet · 14/12/2021 10:57

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.

OP posts:
HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 20:17

Not sure how I missed @Sunshinelollypops8s post. But bloody hell!

Everything @riveted1 said. And more. Will the damage caused by Wakefield never leave us? If it wasn't for the fact I have a client who also believes Power to the People are the only ones to tell us the truth (and Tommy R and the various now perma banned other mad organisations online) I would have assumed that poster was a troll, a particularly unpleasant one!

PanicBuyingSprouts · 14/12/2021 20:23

I haven't read the full thread OP but if an Estate Agent sent someone to my house who was unvaccinated and I found out, I'd be fucking furious.

Just a shame that your decision will be impacting on your income so heavily.

Beachcomber · 14/12/2021 20:25

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Why are you being so rude?

I teach people too and I generally don't find that patronizing them, giving cryptic answers which imply that I know better and they are thickos (whilst failing to actually address their queries) plus being rude to them because they ask questions and hold a different viewpoint to mine is an effective communication strategy. Dismissing questions is not answering questions.

Villanelle17 · 14/12/2021 20:27

It's disgraceful tbh.

Beachcomber · 14/12/2021 20:32

[quote riveted1]@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[/quote]
Sorry to be a boring pedant but I'm not demanding that a specific type of research should be conducted.

I'm arguing that significant paradigm shifts in how we live and work in society should not happen due to the covid19 pandemic unless there is comprehensive rigorous data which justifies that.

onlychildhamster · 14/12/2021 20:32

@PanicBuyingSprouts I am vaccinated and have been going for property viewings. No one has asked to see my covid pass so i presume unvaccinated buyers would possibly be attending viewings even if the EA is vaccinated...

Incognito22333 · 14/12/2021 20:33

I think it is good you are having the vaccine now. I don’t understand why you can’t have your second dose vaccine 3 weeks later as per manufacturer’s guidelines. It doesn’t make sense. It is random and done differently in other countries. In France, your wild Covid would have been recognise as alike to a first vaccine for the purpose of the certification.

beautifullymad · 14/12/2021 20:34

As you've had covid and will now have a vaccine, can you wait two weeks post vaccine and get a covid 19 antibody test and vaccine immunity test (£60).
This will show your employer you have good immunity. You can then hopefully take up your face to face role whist waiting for your second jab.

They are available online from;

monitormyhealth.org.uk/#

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 20:35

[quote Beachcomber]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Why are you being so rude?

I teach people too and I generally don't find that patronizing them, giving cryptic answers which imply that I know better and they are thickos (whilst failing to actually address their queries) plus being rude to them because they ask questions and hold a different viewpoint to mine is an effective communication strategy. Dismissing questions is not answering questions.[/quote]
??

I have answered. You said you didn't understand.

I posted links. You said you didn't understand.

You seem to want to describe vaccines as something 'other' to refute them using a matter of semantics, based on something that the CDC chose to correct, that's America not here and based on a competely different medical system and wider society and had nothing to do with what a vaccine actually is!

I don't think it is me being obtuse or dismissing anything!

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 20:41

Sorry to be a boring pedant but I'm not demanding that a specific type of research should be conducted.

Yes you did. And have had answers, and links to research that comes close

I'm arguing that significant paradigm shifts in how we live and work in society should not happen due to the covid19 pandemic unless there is comprehensive rigorous data which justifies that.

And again, I ask, who decides, Joe Bloggs?

And what do you actually mean by that? That we shouldn't change anything until all the data is in - in about 10 years? It's a novel virus and a once in a lifetime (hopefully) pandemic.

What do you mean by it?

Because no major shift in how we live or work would have killed millions of people in the UK alone! That's why changes were made.

And what does that have to do with vaccines?

I can't tell what you think because any time I have asked you a question you have ignored it. So I can't develop a better understanding of what you think. Which leaves us doomed to repeat ourselves, don't you think?

Beachcomber · 14/12/2021 21:19

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I am not sure why you have posted the WHO page or the dictionary definition that describes a vaccine and immunization. They are just that, a defintion, simple explanation.

Oh! I see! You want to define a vaccine by its efficacy rates. And you are caviling over terminology.

Well, a therapeutic vaccine treats a disease. They are a treatment. A specific type of treatment!

Sorry, I hadn't realised you were attempting sophistry! I'd have disengaged earlier if I had!

As I said earlier I'm struggling slightly with your rather cryptic style of posting.

But what I sort of figured out what from you said above is that covid vaccines can be classified as therapeutic vaccines and therefore can legitimately be classified as vaccines.

OK.

So let's take a look at what a therapeutic vaccine is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_vaccines

A therapeutic vaccine is a vaccine which is administered after a disease or infection has already occurred. A therapeutic vaccine works by activating the immune system of a patient to fight an infection. A therapeutic vaccine differs from a prophylactic vaccine in that prophylactic vaccines are administered to individuals as a precautionary measure to avoid the infection or disease while therapeutic vaccines are administered after the individual is already affected by the disease or infection. A therapeutic vaccine fights an existing infection in the body rather than immunizing the body for protection against future diseases and infections.

www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/when-vaccine-not-vaccine

Like prophylactic vaccines, therapeutic vaccines aim to teach the immune system how to destroy a pathogen or other disease-causing entity (e.g. cancer cells), by introducing an antigen associated with it. But rather than training it against new pathogens, the goal of therapeutic vaccines is to persuade the immune system to fight harder against an existing illness.

But that isn't how covid vaccines are being used.

And that unerringly leads to a huge question mark over how covid vaccines are being marketed, administered and recommended. They seem to be neither prophylactic vaccines nor therapeutic vaccines.

But certainly if one is going to argue that they are therapeutic vaccines that generates big question marks on the ethics and legitimacy of coercing people who are recovered from sars-cov-2 into having therapeutic vaccines for a virus they have recovered from.

JuergenSchwarzwald · 14/12/2021 21:21

Frankly, if I’d known an estate agent was unvaccinated and I’d need to be in an enclosed space with them for a period time, walking through my house to take in the property and then again with every viewing, I think I’d choose a vaccinated estate agent over you. I’m sorry to say, but that’s the truth

Well I'm not an estate agent, and I am vaccinated - but I have not had my booster yet. So would those of you insisting on knowing peoples' vaccine status refuse to deal with me once I was over 6 months (which I will be for a few days before I get my pre-booked booster)?

The OP will probably have as good as protection as me after she's had her first dose.

Lilifer · 14/12/2021 21:31

@BoredZelda

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.

I would make a point of not doing any business with a company that treats its employees like that actually.
BigHuff · 14/12/2021 21:38

[quote Beachcomber]I think this is outrageous.

And I think all the posters saying that they will only deal with vaccinated people are being outrageous too.

The OP has had covid.

We need to stop this unscientific, nonsensical, discriminatory, unjustified and political discrimination against recovered people ASAP.

We also need to stop listening to and propagating utter crap about the waning of natural immunity versus the magical properties of covid vaccines.

Unvaccinated does not mean not immune and vaccinated does not mean immune. Where is the science that shows that recovered people are more of a risk of transmitting the disease to others than vaccinated people???

It's such bullshit.

@VioletUltraViolet if I were you I would take my employer to the cleaner's over this.

www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101

www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext[/quote]
A very sensible post - thank you.

There are many papers which conclude that infection with covid does provide long-term immunity.

Here's another - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34250512/

And here's a really interesting paper that compares two cohorts - recovered + vaccinated and vaccinated alone.
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0829

It shows a significant decline in antibody titre at 6 months post-vaccination, and concludes that there is little benefit to vaccinating those that have been previously exposed to covid. Which is not to say that the vaccine is worthless, just that we might be better off with a less scattergun approach when it comes to prioritising vaccines and boosters.

riveted1 · 14/12/2021 21:55

@Beachcomber

I genuinely don't think you understand enough about vaccination after reading your last post.

Vaccines aim to reduce infection - >50% efficacy is considered good enough to pass clinical trials. The fact that the coronavirus vaccines don't have 100% effectiveness in a real world context does not mean they are not vaccines or that it's some crazy new precendent. There are many many existing vaccines which have a similar efficacy - like the 'flu vaccines.

People keep posting this, yet you keep ignoring it.

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 22:01

[quote Beachcomber]@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I am not sure why you have posted the WHO page or the dictionary definition that describes a vaccine and immunization. They are just that, a defintion, simple explanation.

Oh! I see! You want to define a vaccine by its efficacy rates. And you are caviling over terminology.

Well, a therapeutic vaccine treats a disease. They are a treatment. A specific type of treatment!

Sorry, I hadn't realised you were attempting sophistry! I'd have disengaged earlier if I had!

As I said earlier I'm struggling slightly with your rather cryptic style of posting.

But what I sort of figured out what from you said above is that covid vaccines can be classified as therapeutic vaccines and therefore can legitimately be classified as vaccines.

OK.

So let's take a look at what a therapeutic vaccine is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_vaccines

A therapeutic vaccine is a vaccine which is administered after a disease or infection has already occurred. A therapeutic vaccine works by activating the immune system of a patient to fight an infection. A therapeutic vaccine differs from a prophylactic vaccine in that prophylactic vaccines are administered to individuals as a precautionary measure to avoid the infection or disease while therapeutic vaccines are administered after the individual is already affected by the disease or infection. A therapeutic vaccine fights an existing infection in the body rather than immunizing the body for protection against future diseases and infections.

www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/when-vaccine-not-vaccine

Like prophylactic vaccines, therapeutic vaccines aim to teach the immune system how to destroy a pathogen or other disease-causing entity (e.g. cancer cells), by introducing an antigen associated with it. But rather than training it against new pathogens, the goal of therapeutic vaccines is to persuade the immune system to fight harder against an existing illness.

But that isn't how covid vaccines are being used.

And that unerringly leads to a huge question mark over how covid vaccines are being marketed, administered and recommended. They seem to be neither prophylactic vaccines nor therapeutic vaccines.

But certainly if one is going to argue that they are therapeutic vaccines that generates big question marks on the ethics and legitimacy of coercing people who are recovered from sars-cov-2 into having therapeutic vaccines for a virus they have recovered from.[/quote]
OK @Beachcomber. So you mentioned vaccines and treatments - I pointed out that therapeutice vaccines are treatments. That's the point of them.

Now you want to change that to prophylactic vaccines and you think that there is something amiss with this because there are a lot of ways a vaccine can work. You lept into the Gavi site without pausing at the simple first message, which seems to have led to a misunderstanding.

When is a vaccine not a vaccine?
Most vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent infection with a disease-causing organism, but sometimes vaccines are used to fight an existing infection or illness. Such ‘therapeutic’ vaccines are being developed for numerous illnesses, including dengue, cholera and cancer.

3 December 2020

As for the ethics and legitimacy of coercing people who are recovered from sars-cov-2 into having therapeutic vaccines for a virus they have recovered from. I can only refer you back to the previous posts that you said you dind't undertsand. The ones in answer to your previous assertion that people weren't getting reinfected in meaningful numbers.

Oh, and I don't actually believe you don't understand. Mainly because of the way your language changes. You don't undertsand yet you then post some fairly sophisticated sentences... unless you are using scientific jargoin you also don't undertsand.

Either way, it makes debating with you just a little bit like herding cats!

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 22:07

@BigHuff and the last sentence in the conclusion is Our data may also inform expectations for the immunological outcomes of booster vaccination.

And, later in the discussion These data may also provide context for understanding potential discrepancies in vaccine efficacy at preventing infection versus severe disease, hospitalization, and death (10, 11). Declining antibody titers over time likely reduce the potential that vaccination will completely prevent infection or provide near-sterilizing immunity.

and then Despite the overall strengths of this study, including the large sample size and integrated measurement of multiple components of the antigen-specific adaptive immune response, there are several limitations. First, the overall number of subjects, although substantial for studies with high depth of immune profiling, was still limited compared with epidemiological or phase 3 clinical trials. In particular, only 9 to 10 individuals with preexisting immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection were fully sampled through 6 months postvaccination.

and on... As such, the results described may not fully represent the durability of vaccine-induced immunity in older individuals or in populations with chronic diseases and/or compromised immune systems, and future studies will be required to better quantify the immune response over time in these populations.

Which is why the initial booster programme was for the vulnerable groups as already identified.

And it is always worth looking at dates. This research was completed and written up in October. Prior to Omicron which, at the very least, has thrown out some different markers that made some people with some serious educational and professional kudos disagree with you!

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 22:08

Nice and succinct @CJsGoldfish Smile

MynahBird · 14/12/2021 22:12

My company brought in a company-wide vaccine mandate, but gave enough notice so that unvaccinated staff members would have time to complete both jabs. I think it's the timescale which is unfair for you, not the requirement.

Beachcomber · 14/12/2021 22:22

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Might I suggest that you spent less posting space on telling me what you think I think and how little I understand (or admonishing me for understanding!?) and a little more on fleshing out your own arguments. I'm only saying that as all I've got from your posts so far is that you think I'm wrong but I don't even know what you think I'm wrong about let alone why. Confused

boogiebogie · 14/12/2021 22:28

Pm me if you want details of a lawyer. Unlawful... Will they pay you if you are damaged by the vaccine?

BigHuff · 14/12/2021 22:29

[quote HoardingSamphireSaurus]@BigHuff and the last sentence in the conclusion is Our data may also inform expectations for the immunological outcomes of booster vaccination.

And, later in the discussion These data may also provide context for understanding potential discrepancies in vaccine efficacy at preventing infection versus severe disease, hospitalization, and death (10, 11). Declining antibody titers over time likely reduce the potential that vaccination will completely prevent infection or provide near-sterilizing immunity.

and then Despite the overall strengths of this study, including the large sample size and integrated measurement of multiple components of the antigen-specific adaptive immune response, there are several limitations. First, the overall number of subjects, although substantial for studies with high depth of immune profiling, was still limited compared with epidemiological or phase 3 clinical trials. In particular, only 9 to 10 individuals with preexisting immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection were fully sampled through 6 months postvaccination.

and on... As such, the results described may not fully represent the durability of vaccine-induced immunity in older individuals or in populations with chronic diseases and/or compromised immune systems, and future studies will be required to better quantify the immune response over time in these populations.

Which is why the initial booster programme was for the vulnerable groups as already identified.

And it is always worth looking at dates. This research was completed and written up in October. Prior to Omicron which, at the very least, has thrown out some different markers that made some people with some serious educational and professional kudos disagree with you![/quote]
Hang on - I think you're agreeing with me here. Smile Nothing you've said rebuffs anything I have posted. I think if you wanted to you could have picked some better quotes, as there are some sections where the authors interpret their data to mean the vaccine has superiority over covid recovery!

(Also not sure about the first quote you've highlighted, as to me that reads as though they expect a booster to have much the same result as first and second doses, no?)

Scientists will always argue over data, and anyone who wants to will always find a scientist with data to support their opinion! I will not pretend to be an expert on covid or vaccines, but I do think I am a reasonably intelligent person with some very intelligent colleagues, the majority of who are immunologists and doctors. It would be disingenuous of me to say that everyone agrees that the vaccine is ineffective, but equally that is not an uncommon opinion. I was at the BSI conference a couple of weeks ago and among attendees there was also quite a diversity of opinions about both covid and the vaccine. ¯\(ツ)/¯

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 22:43

That's the point about sceince and research studies. It is entirely possible to read the data from many perspectives @BigHuff

I read that and think, "OK. So we have boosters because there are so many unanswered questions and the data we do have doesn't have the same confidence levels, is full of 'maybes' and 'for some people'' and we still need to protect the vulnerable"

You read it and, if I understood you, think "So why bother with the booster?"

As you say, that difference of interpretation will be replicated many times across many cohorts. But the bottom line is, this is a pandemic, this variant still, as far as is known, retains the capability of razing the NHS to the ground and we can do something about it. Not to mention it rages on in other countries, so we aren't anywhere near rid of it yet.

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 14/12/2021 22:47

(Also not sure about the first quote you've highlighted, as to me that reads as though they expect a booster to have much the same result as first and second doses, no?)

Our data may also inform expectations for the immunological outcomes of booster vaccination.

No. I read that as meaning that all of their questions, queries and initial assumptions would feed into other data about the booster. Not that it had an answer or would be definitive. It's that 'may' again. It might be of interest if it pans out on a larger cohort, longitudinal study. It could be used as supporting data for something like REACT-2