Page 10 | Do you still agree with mandatory vaccines for NHS?

Sportslady44 · 06/01/2022 14:18

yes unless there is a medical reason not too.

PAFMO · 06/01/2022 14:19

@GreenWhiteViolet

'Choices have consequences' is lazy reasoning here. Presumably even the most ardent pro-vaccine poster wouldn't agree with a law like 'if you're not vaccinated, you should be locked in your house until the pandemic ends, because choices have consequences'. It's not a reasonable consequence that naturally follows your choice. To me, and many others, losing your job isn't a reasonable consequence either.

It isn't like 'if you're a police officer, you have to wear a uniform' because anyone who joins the police is well aware of that fact before they begin their training, and so anyone with a strong aversion to wearing a police uniform for any reason will choose a different career!

Well, obviously nobody would agree with your (hypothetical and totally unworkable and not been mentioned in any country in the world not even China) example. Because it's a silly one. Do you have a better example worthy of pondering?

What's the saying? I have a right to swing my arm wherever and whenever I want, until the point where it socks somebody else in the gob.

GreenWhiteViolet · 06/01/2022 14:25

Yes, it was a deliberately extreme and unrealistic example, because I wanted it to be something everyone would disagree with! That was the point. It shows that 'choices have consequences' isn't sufficient reasoning to justify things. Natural consequences are things like 'if you go outside in winter wearing a t-shirt, you will get cold'. Artificial consequences are decided by people in authority, and so are up for debate as to whether or not they're reasonable or justified.

You may or may not think being unable to work in the NHS if you're unvaccinated is reasonable and justified, but 'choices have consequences' alone isn't a sound argument for it.

userperuser · 06/01/2022 14:28

What's the saying? I have a right to swing my arm wherever and whenever I want, until the point where it socks somebody else in the gob

Well compelling any worker to take a vaccine that causes serious consequences for the individual is no different.

If we have genuinely come to the point where HCPs are required to take a vaccine regularly that could potentially cause side effects then it’s time to require people to pay for treatment and reward the HCPs with significant pay rises to account for this.

PAFMO · 06/01/2022 14:40

@GreenWhiteViolet

Yes, it was a deliberately extreme and unrealistic example, because I wanted it to be something everyone would disagree with! That was the point. It shows that 'choices have consequences' isn't sufficient reasoning to justify things. Natural consequences are things like 'if you go outside in winter wearing a t-shirt, you will get cold'. Artificial consequences are decided by people in authority, and so are up for debate as to whether or not they're reasonable or justified.

You may or may not think being unable to work in the NHS if you're unvaccinated is reasonable and justified, but 'choices have consequences' alone isn't a sound argument for it.

If you don't wear a jumper, it only affects you.

GreenWhiteViolet · 06/01/2022 14:54

Yes, you're right about the jumper, but I don't think that negates the substance of my post, as that example was purely to illustrate the difference between natural and artificial consequences.

AllisoninWunderland · 06/01/2022 14:55

No op, I do not support mandatory vaccinations. How can any state mandate that you put a medication into your body?!

Other people’s fear of getting ill does not trump others fear of repeatedly getting a jab for an illness which has a 99% survival rate.

I’m pro vaccination in general, my children have all had their childhood immunizations and my immune compromised dd had the chicken pox vaccine to protect her against potential serious illness.
Those vaccines were choice. We weighed up the pros and cons and made a decision. Its always been a choice.
You cannot be a democracy and start mandating people have a jab they made a decision not to have. Then you become an authoritarian state.
I don’t even think NHS staff should be forced. And I speak as a parent who’s in and out of hospital with a child.

It’s a slippery slope. And where does it end? You must have 2. No you must have 3. No sorry you must have 4. No actually you must come every 3 months and have another.

It wouldn’t be so bad if they were very effective and gave lifelong (or even year long) protection but they don’t. Yes they lower your risk slightly of passing it on or becoming seriously ill. and that’s great if you want to have one for those reasons. But actually forcing people to take more and more jabs is plain wrong. It diminishes trust in the state/medical authorities.

I also think there is a skepticism about the Covid vaccine in particular. Especially now two years on. We know so much more now. We know facts about the average age of death being 82, survival rates being 99% and I think that puts people off vaccine. Also most people who’ve had it have had it mildly or moderately and the fear is just not as strong as it was in general.

RachC2021 · 06/01/2022 14:56

@GreenWhiteViolet

'Choices have consequences' is lazy reasoning here. Presumably even the most ardent pro-vaccine poster wouldn't agree with a law like 'if you're not vaccinated, you should be locked in your house until the pandemic ends, because choices have consequences'. It's not a reasonable consequence that naturally follows your choice. To me, and many others, losing your job isn't a reasonable consequence either.

It isn't like 'if you're a police officer, you have to wear a uniform' because anyone who joins the police is well aware of that fact before they begin their training, and so anyone with a strong aversion to wearing a police uniform for any reason will choose a different career!

It’s the same in that requirements change over time. Police uniforms now are not the same as 50 years ago. They’ll change again in future too. They could change to leggings instead of trousers — people averse to wearing leggings (I’d be one of them) would have to put up with them or leave.

Terms of employment can change. If you don’t agree with them and don’t have a valid exemption then leave. Or be redeployed or made redundant.

It’s a tiny, tiny percentage of people that will have lasting side effects from the vaccine. Far more will have lasting side effects from Covid-19 itself. If you can’t understand that there’s no hope for you.

Enb76 · 06/01/2022 14:57

If you don't wear a jumper, it only affects you.

Only if you're on your own. You would most likely complain about being cold to anyone in earshot and that's an affect you are having on others (not a serious one but for most people neither is getting Covid).

Enb76 · 06/01/2022 15:03

It’s a tiny, tiny percentage of people that will have lasting side effects from the vaccine.

Isn't this is the argument made about Covid that everyone hates? That the vast majority of people will neither die nor have long term ill health due to Covid. I think it's something like you're 98.1% safe if you are of good health and under 65 from death or long term issues.

If you mandate the vaccine and someone dies or is disabled due to taking it, it doesn't matter to them or to their families that the risk was tiny, they were the unlucky one and there is no comeback. If they were of good health and under 65 - they would have also been very unlikely to have had any problems with Covid either.

howdiditcometothis666 · 06/01/2022 15:24

Is the mandate to be double vaccinated for NHA and Care workers? Reading the Liberty website it seems to suggest it doesn't cover having the booster?

Maverickess · 06/01/2022 15:50

@howdiditcometothis666

Is the mandate to be double vaccinated for NHA and Care workers? Reading the Liberty website it seems to suggest it doesn't cover having the booster?

It's mandatory to be 'fully vaccinated', and specifically the first 2 doses, as far as I'm aware they haven't included boosters (for the mandate) to mean fully vaccinated yet. According to Skills for Care, the current law covers the first two doses, but there is a possibility that this booster may be included in the definition of being fully vaccinated, or even possibly any further boosters that are deemed required. I think there may be more backlash to that, I have felt quite rough after all 3 for around 24 hours, and I can't afford to lose a shift every 3 months and I feel it's unfair to expect me to work through it or take the financial hit, and unfair to expect me to turn up every 3 months, unpaid, to get it. We've only just recently started being paid for attending for testing, on top of the hours each week worked for free that is expected for handovers and completing paperwork. I'm getting a bit sick of 'duty of care' being bleated in answer to speaking up when you're having the piss taken out of you on an ongoing basis. I have a duty of care, but that shouldn't extend to costing me money that I can ill afford because of the wages I'm on already.

roughmeasures · 06/01/2022 15:59

@woollymammoths

Not doing this to goad and completely respectful of people’s choices. But genuinely interested in opinions and any research that people are aware of.

At this point in time I am struggling to think of family and friends that do not have covid right now. Some are triple vaccinated, some are unvaccinated. There does not seem to be any distinct differences between how easily it was transmitted or how ill the individuals are - according to their vaccination status.

Example:
My DP is triple jabbed - he has had covid twice (once after 2 jabs, the second time after booster). More ill the second time, but still mild.

His (NHS) department is currently shut down with the amount of (triple jabbed) staff off sick with covid.

I caught covid from him.

I am unvaccinated - have had covid twice. Been unpleasant but not hospitalised. The second time milder than the first.

I am on mat leave but due to return to my NHS role.

Why am I still being forced to be vaccinated?

please do not say ‘just find another job’. That is not the point of my thread

You can write a letter to your bosses / the NHS explaining why you are choosing not to be vaccinated. Stand your ground.

This suggestion of all NHs workers to be vaccinated has still not been passed by the House of Lords (and it seems like they mostly don't agree with it) - it's a tactic by the government to increase the vaccination rates.

Sit tight and wait this out - you are not alone.

CaliforniaDrumming · 06/01/2022 16:02

@Enb76

It’s a tiny, tiny percentage of people that will have lasting side effects from the vaccine.

Isn't this is the argument made about Covid that everyone hates? That the vast majority of people will neither die nor have long term ill health due to Covid. I think it's something like you're 98.1% safe if you are of good health and under 65 from death or long term issues.

If you mandate the vaccine and someone dies or is disabled due to taking it, it doesn't matter to them or to their families that the risk was tiny, they were the unlucky one and there is no comeback. If they were of good health and under 65 - they would have also been very unlikely to have had any problems with Covid either.

9 people have died from the vaccine in the UK as far as I know. 9.

I haven't bothered to look up figures of those who have died from Covid, but I know they are more than 9. Even if you get into the "with Covid or of Covid" or blah, they are more than 9.

userperuser · 06/01/2022 16:08

CaliforniaDrumming

Nobody is compelled to contract covid it’s just unfortunate but HCPs are potentially being compelled to take a vaccine that carries (a very tiny) risk of serious complications/death.

It doesn’t matter how many deaths have occurred from the vaccine you cannot mandate it when there even a tiny risk is death is just not on.

vodkaredbullgirl · 06/01/2022 16:19

Wonder if the OP be back, or has she done her goading and pissed off.

PAFMO · 06/01/2022 16:20

@vodkaredbullgirl

Wonder if the OP be back, or has she done her goading and pissed off.

Well, she namechanged for this one, so I expect she'll be doing her bit elsewhere under another name.

vodkaredbullgirl · 06/01/2022 16:33

I forgot about the name fail last night.

Turquoisesea · 06/01/2022 16:52

No I don’t agree with mandatory vaccination for NHS staff and I can’t see how it will in any way help a struggling NHS by having lots of staff forced to leave. I would personally prefer to be treated by an unvaccinated doctor / nurse than no one. Waiting lists for routine treatment is already horrendous, how on earth will this help? The government will just use it as an excuse to blame the unvaccinated when the NHS has been stretched to capacity for years.

KurtWilde · 06/01/2022 17:00

@Turquoisesea

No I don’t agree with mandatory vaccination for NHS staff and I can’t see how it will in any way help a struggling NHS by having lots of staff forced to leave. I would personally prefer to be treated by an unvaccinated doctor / nurse than no one. Waiting lists for routine treatment is already horrendous, how on earth will this help? The government will just use it as an excuse to blame the unvaccinated when the NHS has been stretched to capacity for years.

Absolutely everything that's been said here, which is also what I've been saying on every thread like this I've commented on. Some of you are absolutely blind to what mandatory NHS vaccination would mean for the country.

whymewhyme · 06/01/2022 17:18

Totally agree!! Im in the same position as you are!

merrymouse · 06/01/2022 17:54

It doesn’t matter how many deaths have occurred from the vaccine you cannot mandate it when there even a tiny risk is death is just not on.

It’s a balance of risk.

You also have to take into account the risks to others caused by strict lockdowns.

People who refuse to have the vaccine because of a very small risk are essentially expecting others to bare that risk so that society can function.

merrymouse · 06/01/2022 18:03

and the vaccines that are now available have shown some reduction in transmission at a population level against pre omicron variants but this is meaningless on on individual level.

And because it reduces transmission at a population level, we are slowly finding ways to live with Covid. Visitors have been allowed in hospitals. Care homes are not out of bounds. The hospitality industry hasn’t ground to a halt. Funerals have been able to take place that aren’t all on zoom.

userperuser · 06/01/2022 18:03

merrymouse

Evidence increasingly shows that the benefit of the vaccine is only to the individual receiving it and that’s how medicine has always worked, those not receiving a vaccine are not putting others at risk only themselves.

If you look at it another way regardless of how small a risk to the individual a vaccine is there are those that want that risk to be taken for their benefit so how is that any different?

You are assuming that lockdowns are being caused by the unvaccinated but that simply isn’t true. While vaccines appear to be doing their job at reducing death and serious illness in those most at risk we have seen so far that even with a massive amount of positive tests that lockdowns are not needed.

merrymouse · 06/01/2022 18:10

You are assuming that lockdowns are being caused by the unvaccinated but that simply isn’t true. While vaccines appear to be doing their job at reducing death and serious illness in those most at risk we have seen so far that even with a massive amount of positive tests that lockdowns are not needed.

No, I am saying that lockdowns aren’t needed because people ARE vaccinated.

Most people who test positive will have been vaccinated and therefore the situation is manageable.

People who choose not to be vaccinated are only able to benefit from loosening of restrictions because of the vaccinated population.