Do you still agree with mandatory vaccines for NHS?

[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

[quote howdiditcometothis666]@Kitkat151 They could move or commute to Wales or Scotland? I see nurse jobs advertised there all the time up to £70k. I think it is only mandatory in England but maybe I'm wrong?

The RCN says " The RCN has significant concerns that mandating vaccines will further marginalise those who are currently vaccine hesitant and put further pressure on a hugely depleted workforce by forcing people out of employment. Evidence is already emerging of unvaccinated staff being put at risk of redundancy in care settings following recent changes to the legislation."[/quote]
Like I said....very few people will leave.....they will just get the vaccine

@Kitkat151 We will all watch the brinkmanship with interest. Has the NHS ever had to do 80000 disciplinaries all at once? Excellent use of tax payers money.

Are you entitled to benefits if you resign over vaccination?

@Carriemac

Are you entitled to benefits if you resign over vaccination?

It's dismissal not resignation so you probably are, though I have been made redundant a few times and haven't been eligible for benefits apart from job seekers allowance which was more trouble than it was worth, so I didn't bother. People would be better just getting a casual job of which there seem to be plenty

I don't agree with it being mandatory. But I don't know why they wouldn't want to get it done I just don't understand but it's up to them IMO and they shouldn't be sacked for it.

Work for the NHS, double vaccinated. Don’t want the booster and at some point that will be mandatory, I’m already making plans to shift to private sector.

www.brown.edu/news/2022-01-07/covid-cancer

This is why those who cares for vulnerable people need to get vaccinated, to reduce even a slight chance is better than doing nothing.

I don’t think any medical treatment should be coerced. I think it’s wrong to have domestic vaccine passports too.
In regards to the NHS I don’t think it should be mandatory for anyone working in the NHS prior to the vaccine being available. I can understand it being put on their list of requires vaccines for new staff. Dismissing experienced staff because they don’t want to have a newly developed vaccine is going to cause more strain to an already under staffed environment.

@MyMoneyIsAllSpent

No. My body, my choice. Never been tested, not jabbed, never been ill, in the last two years particularly. I regularly drive the road to our city's crematorium and have seen less than ten hearses in two years. I'm not saying C19 doesn't exist but I've no personal experience of it or witnessed it.

Judging the severity of the pandemic by the number of hearses you happen to see when you pass a crematorium has to be one of the most bizarrely unscientific assessments I've ever seen!

An AS on pp shows lots of deleted posts, links to utter charlatans like Malone on Twitter and proclaiming that Pine Needle tea will cure us of anything we might catch.

I always have strongly disagreed with mandatory vaccinations.

However i am at a loss to understand why you wouldn't have it as an nhs worker unless you have a medical reason not to (and even then in most cases the reason people give tends to be nonsense and they remain more at risk from covid than vaccine).

We know now that previous infection provides less immunity to catching omicron. Vaccination with AZ alone is slightly higher but not much. This has nothing to do with hospitalisations but is relevant to NHS staff. If you are more likely to catch covid, you pose a higher risk to patients. And you are much more likely to be off work sick too which means greater instability in staffing. Going forward we want to improve consistent staffing and planning - we don't want staff off every year with covid or the flu or in work with covid or flu cos this has an impact on patients.

We also know now that previous infection plus Pfizer or Modena or previous infection plus AZ and a booster gives a good level of protection against catching covid. That means this protects patients directly from staff giving it to them AND indirectly from being affected by staff absences.

Early data is suggesting that at least one vaccination is tending to give much greater immunity to hospitalisations for new variants than previous infection too. If this is the case then it becomes even more important.

I can't understand why you would work in healthcare and not take this seriously and follow the research on this. For me anyone working in healthcare who doesn't comprehend or understand why this is important and cannot provide a good counter argument to this, I would be questioning their judgement and whether they centre patients properly.

The argument about long term effects of vaccine and having covid don't really hold water if the short to medium term effects of not being vaccinated are so large.

As an health employer, I would hesitate to employ someone unvaccinated at this point and I'd be reluctant to promote existing unvaccinated staff.

I do think its wrong to be held to ransom by unvaccinated staff who simply don't like the idea of vaccinations in the absence of evidence of adverse issues. It makes me very much resent them and causes me to lack trust in the health service. Antivaxxers in a position of trust cause a lot of damage because they are held up of examples of 'experts'. I wouldn't like to be treated by one because of the harm it does to patients by encouraging people to be unvaccinated because it puts them at risk. Its one thing to make that decision not to be vaccinated yourself but its another if you are then being held up to encourage others not to.

Its almost massively disrespectful of your colleagues who have had the vaccine - for the protection of patients - even if they share the same concerns over vaccination as yourself. You are happy to rely on their immunity to protect patients and keep workload down resulting from greater staff immunity and lower transmission from staff to patients.

I STILL don't actively support mandatory vaccinations as I think it undermines principles of consent but i do take an incredibly dim view of staff who do not have a vaccination in a crisis situation. The health service needs people who are minded to work together in the best interests of all in a crisis. Its not just about this pandemic but the next one.

Going forward rather than forcing mandatory vaccinations for existing staff, I would however be minded to take into consideration vaccine status for new hires and promotions. Not a blanket ban but a relevant question at interview that could be asked. It might be an indication of understanding of science and research, how susceptible to online conspiracy theories or how much of a team player a staff member was. If they have a medical reason not to have it then it should be disclosed - the ward should be aware so you can risk assess the situation (you don't want a ward full of medical exempt staff but one or two maybe manageable). This also means it can be assessed if the candidate is talking bollocks too (see above points about medical knowledge and awareness of science and the rabbit hole).

So i do think that unvaxxed status should be used against staff in certain situations if merited but not to simply force people out of their existing role on an arbitrary date. I do think it should be on the radar whilst hiring. If someone can come up with a good reason to say this is why I'm unvaccinated and this is the data to back that up, then yeah absolutely crack on - they are a good candidate. If they can't? Well that raises a whole bunch of questions over suitability.

Going forward we want new doctors and nurses going into the profession with the right attitude as well as the right qualifications.

If we are trying to say we have the best health service in the world and we aren't striving for that as a minimum and are simply just trying to fill job vacancies with anyone with just the right qualifications we are going horribly wrong somewhere.

We should be trying to weed out doctors and nurses with bad attitudes and poor understanding of the latest scientific developments and their implications from the NHS as they are counter productive to its quality and to patients.

OP I do wonder about your reasoning and whether in light of the most recent data about omicron and whether previous infection alone is a good enough justification if the evidence points the other way. You should be paying close attention to this research.

Great post, @RedToothBrush

@Heathway

Work for the NHS, double vaccinated. Don’t want the booster and at some point that will be mandatory, I’m already making plans to shift to private sector.

Are you a nurse?

@RedToothBrush

I always have strongly disagreed with mandatory vaccinations.

However i am at a loss to understand why you wouldn't have it as an nhs worker unless you have a medical reason not to (and even then in most cases the reason people give tends to be nonsense and they remain more at risk from covid than vaccine).

We know now that previous infection provides less immunity to catching omicron. Vaccination with AZ alone is slightly higher but not much. This has nothing to do with hospitalisations but is relevant to NHS staff. If you are more likely to catch covid, you pose a higher risk to patients. And you are much more likely to be off work sick too which means greater instability in staffing. Going forward we want to improve consistent staffing and planning - we don't want staff off every year with covid or the flu or in work with covid or flu cos this has an impact on patients.

We also know now that previous infection plus Pfizer or Modena or previous infection plus AZ and a booster gives a good level of protection against catching covid. That means this protects patients directly from staff giving it to them AND indirectly from being affected by staff absences.

Early data is suggesting that at least one vaccination is tending to give much greater immunity to hospitalisations for new variants than previous infection too. If this is the case then it becomes even more important.

I can't understand why you would work in healthcare and not take this seriously and follow the research on this. For me anyone working in healthcare who doesn't comprehend or understand why this is important and cannot provide a good counter argument to this, I would be questioning their judgement and whether they centre patients properly.

The argument about long term effects of vaccine and having covid don't really hold water if the short to medium term effects of not being vaccinated are so large.

As an health employer, I would hesitate to employ someone unvaccinated at this point and I'd be reluctant to promote existing unvaccinated staff.

I do think its wrong to be held to ransom by unvaccinated staff who simply don't like the idea of vaccinations in the absence of evidence of adverse issues. It makes me very much resent them and causes me to lack trust in the health service. Antivaxxers in a position of trust cause a lot of damage because they are held up of examples of 'experts'. I wouldn't like to be treated by one because of the harm it does to patients by encouraging people to be unvaccinated because it puts them at risk. Its one thing to make that decision not to be vaccinated yourself but its another if you are then being held up to encourage others not to.

Its almost massively disrespectful of your colleagues who have had the vaccine - for the protection of patients - even if they share the same concerns over vaccination as yourself. You are happy to rely on their immunity to protect patients and keep workload down resulting from greater staff immunity and lower transmission from staff to patients.

I STILL don't actively support mandatory vaccinations as I think it undermines principles of consent but i do take an incredibly dim view of staff who do not have a vaccination in a crisis situation. The health service needs people who are minded to work together in the best interests of all in a crisis. Its not just about this pandemic but the next one.

Going forward rather than forcing mandatory vaccinations for existing staff, I would however be minded to take into consideration vaccine status for new hires and promotions. Not a blanket ban but a relevant question at interview that could be asked. It might be an indication of understanding of science and research, how susceptible to online conspiracy theories or how much of a team player a staff member was. If they have a medical reason not to have it then it should be disclosed - the ward should be aware so you can risk assess the situation (you don't want a ward full of medical exempt staff but one or two maybe manageable). This also means it can be assessed if the candidate is talking bollocks too (see above points about medical knowledge and awareness of science and the rabbit hole).

So i do think that unvaxxed status should be used against staff in certain situations if merited but not to simply force people out of their existing role on an arbitrary date. I do think it should be on the radar whilst hiring. If someone can come up with a good reason to say this is why I'm unvaccinated and this is the data to back that up, then yeah absolutely crack on - they are a good candidate. If they can't? Well that raises a whole bunch of questions over suitability.

Going forward we want new doctors and nurses going into the profession with the right attitude as well as the right qualifications.

If we are trying to say we have the best health service in the world and we aren't striving for that as a minimum and are simply just trying to fill job vacancies with anyone with just the right qualifications we are going horribly wrong somewhere.

We should be trying to weed out doctors and nurses with bad attitudes and poor understanding of the latest scientific developments and their implications from the NHS as they are counter productive to its quality and to patients.

OP I do wonder about your reasoning and whether in light of the most recent data about omicron and whether previous infection alone is a good enough justification if the evidence points the other way. You should be paying close attention to this research.

Apologies for quoting a long post but there is a reason for doing so.

You write the above and yet do not once mention or consider that currently covid vaccines have conditional marketing authorisation status under the European Medical Agency.

Mandating a vaccine (or any pharmaceutical) which is under this status is unprecedented.

This is some of what the European Medical Agency have to say on the Pfizer vaccine.

www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty

The impact of vaccination with Comirnaty on the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community is not yet known. It is not yet known how much vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus.

It is not currently known how long protection given by Comirnaty lasts. The people vaccinated in the clinical trial will continue to be followed for 2 years to gather more information on the duration of protection.

Animal studies do not show any harmful effects in pregnancy, however data on the use of Comirnaty during pregnancy are limited. Although there are no studies on breast-feeding, no risk for breast-feeding is expected.

The decision on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant women should be made in close consultation with a healthcare professional after considering the benefits and risks.

Comirnaty has been granted a conditional marketing authorisation. This means that there is more evidence to come about the vaccine (see below), which the company is required to provide.

As Comirnaty received a conditional marketing authorisation, the company that markets Comirnaty will continue to provide results from the main trial in adults, which is ongoing for 2 years, as well as from the trials in children.

In addition, independent studies of COVID-19 vaccines coordinated by EU authorities will also give more information on the vaccine’s long-term safety and benefit in the general population.

Now I find those statements to be reassuringly pragmatic, transparent and sensible. However it makes me very very uncomfortable that pharmaceuticals which have not completed the trial process can be a legal state imposed obligation for anyone. Regardless of what their job is.

It also makes me very uncomfortable reading posts like yours suggesting that people who decline the vaccines should be discriminated against in recruitment prococdures. As does your suggestion that such people have a "poor understanding of science" when the EMA itself is perfectly clear and transparent on the (rather obvious) fact that "the science" is not yet complete.

“Going forward we want new doctors and nurses going into the profession with the right attitude as well as the right qualifications.”

And what is the “right” attitude? Who decides that? What happens if someone’s experiences change their attitude? What if someone challenges that? Are we all to just be one homogeneous mass, blindly nodding and agreeing with one another?

In other words, we need those who only accept the party line without question, no other option is valid. We have always been at war with Eurasia

If this chap goes for any job now, or is considered for promotion, his vaccine status and opinions are liable to be up for discussion because of his decision to take issue with Sajid Javid in a very public way.

He will know that.

It might well be a good selling point for someone in private practice, however.

Beachcomber the point is precisely that it is completely unprecidented.

You have to flip this on its head in that respect. What if people hadn't trusted the science we had? Knowledge that is built up on years of knowledge and modelling which is way past anything we had before.

If doctors and nurses hadn't led the charge in taking up the offer of a vaccine where would that leave us? Not only with many HCPs dead, leading to more deaths from a lack of hospital staff but also the public trust in the vaccine wouldn't be there either. "Why should I have a vaccine that my doctor won't even have?"

How many more dead would there be?

HCP have to be prepared to take the lead for this reason alone.

In a crisis scenario I do think you have to ask the question that if you don't trust the likes the best call of the likes of the JCVI and the MHRA to be making the right call and that they are prepared to recommend the drug - because on balance the alternative is worse - why are you a HCPs yourself? You have to trust in the ethics and principles of the drugs regulators and those safe guarding the public to understand that they will only make that call if they feel it necessary.

If you go 'oh well I kind of trust them, but only so much and when it suits me, and only if I can allow all my colleagues to take the risk first and I'll just be the control subject until such time as I think there is enough years of trialling because I don't trust them enough even though I'm also supposed to be recommending this treatment to my patients' (ESPECIALLY when you are also simulataneously in a position of trust and responsibility for the health and well being of your patients and doing so heightens the risk of exposing them to an infectious disease ) you've kind of have a credibility problem.

I completely get that big pharma shouldn't be just trusted and I completely get that individual level cases may have a good case to argue for particular underlying health reasons - but if you don't have them and the emergency regulation extends to healthy people because it is still posing a risk to those without medical conditions it really is an issue. You have to be able to give a credible argument to the question: 'why everyone else but why not me in a position of responsibility and trust in this area?'.

I 100% think in any other situation long term clinical trials should and must be done in their entirity before roll out to the public at large. However thats the point of ethics and the overseeing of trials in this country too - in 2022 the situation is that even at early stage trials in humans there has to be a certain amount of trust between big pharma and test subjects and there has to be a degree of certainity that its not going to immediately kill someone (unless its a trial drug of last resort).

This is an exceptional situation though. One in which you make the calculation that if you don't do something you'll end up with so many people dead who are both classified 'healthy' and 'with underlying health conditions' before the completion of long term studies that you have to make a difficult call. Simply because thats the nature of a pandemic and what makes them an utterly unquie set of circumstances.

If you don't trust your overseeing bodies to make a call in a time of crisis why should you trust them in ordinary times? And crucially to stand by that enough to make the appropriate clinical recommendations in line with that?

The whole point is that medicine is a whole pile of 'on balance' difficult judgment calls and that rests upon the pillars of public trust. Upset that crucial balance of power and you can put people at real (unneccesary) risk.

It comes down to: In refusing to get vaccinated as a doctor you are in effect, not just making the call that its not for you but you also think that others shouldn't get it - you have to have a clear, credible and scientific argument if you go down that route. You have to be able to lay out why you didn't get it it, and what the criteria you used for that were.

In the case of covid you also have to factor in, whether your decision makes a difference to patients when it comes to a highly infectious disease. It being highly infectious isn't something we should just wave our hand and forget about. We have protocols in place to reduce the risk of other infections in various other ways - everything from isolation for other infectious diseases (eg a case of chicken pox), changing gloves between patients, to masks and alerting people if there has been exposure to someone with recognised health issues such as HIV, hepatitis etc etc. If there is now a significant increased risk from staff who are unvaccinated against covid it should be being considered as such too.

As I said above the latest research on omicron and previous infection raises some bloody hard questions about relying on previous infection alone in terms of immunity and reducing transmission.

I, personally, don't always follow generalised health recommendations / advice and apply my own judgment to my risk factors. Thats my judgment to make. If I'm wrong its me, who faces the consequences.

In the case of infectious disease its a different issue. Infectious diseases require different protocols and safeguarding unfortunately.

To use an analogy: if I go kayaking without a life jacket and have an accident and drown thats my stupid fault. If I'm a kayaking instructor who takes out a bunch of learners and I don't wear a life jacket what message am I sending out? Even if they are good swimmers I'm not teaching them good practice as they don't have the knowledge and skills to be making good risk assessment. And this is doubly problematic if this is the recommendation of my regulatory body who, having seen a bunch of accidents and recognise the risk realise the importance of safety and give me my certification to be an instructor with this understanding as a crucial part of my approval. You could argue that my students are making their own choice still. But you'd still be liable if they died on a course you were overseeing because you'd be in the position of responsibility and trust - and your role is to keep them safe not put them at risk. The whole thing about leading by example and taking the risk of following safety recommendations seriously would definitely come up in the inquiry that followed.

Your actions as a HCP are not neutral with a highly infectious disease. Thats wildly different to most other health care condition where the impact of the choices you make about your health are much more limited in scope. (Noting here that you'd face consequences if you took decisions that did endanger your patients such as being drunk or operating on someone when you knew you were impaired in some way).

Ultimately the NHS itself has to make policy based on not discriminating against people, but also has to ensure the health and safety of those in its care and trust in it. In a crisis the goal posts may shift but you still have to balance all that.

I don't believe a blanket ban is appriopriate, but I do think that you have to have serious conversations about why someone is making a decision not to vaccinate and what (if any) the consequences of that are to other people. There is a point where, if the risk is high, you have to consider how you manage that risk and whether it is justifible. Particularly if you are recruiting new staff and you have a number of potential candidates available.

We know there is a risk to remaining unvaxxed. We know it could be to our health - but we also know with covid - its not just to our own life. And if appropriate why shouldn't that be considered relevant if your job is to care for and take a position of responsibility and trust over clinically vulnerable patients?

It is absoluetely an ethical question to say - we need to look at this and make an on balance decision for new job appointments in this field on a case by case basis. Because it matters. Ethically its not just about your own health and your own body - its about others that you may come into contact with too.

As I say, I'm not for mandatory vaccinations anywhere but I still think the ball is in your court for you have to make the argument if you are effectively going against the advice of your governing bodies for no apparent reason other than you 'don't want to'. There are defences and arguments to be had here but they are much more few and far between if you are in a position of direct responsibility for others who are vulnerable.

Going forward we want new doctors and nurses going into the profession with the right attitude as well as the right qualifications.”

Hmm I’m wondering what the right attitude means?

Eg does it mean always agreeing to do over time/extra surgery etc… because the NHS is short staffed and there is a long waiting list?
Even though for the surgeon/GP/consultant this likely means a pension fine too? (Yes consultants are getting hefty fine for working too much because then they are contributing too much to their pension 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️)

Does it mean agreeing that no patient should ever end up dehydrated because you didn’t give them water/ensure they could drunk on their own?
Many HCP would fail that one atm. The care is appauling (see also the fact the many NHS have raised serious incidents etc…)

Does it mean they should be happy to do 14 12 hours shifts one after the other (as in no breaks/weekend type of thing) oh and do some night shifts in the middle too.
They already are doing that.

Or do you mean that they are supposed to be this homogenous group that just say ‘Yes Sir’ wo ever questioning the reason for the decision re vaccine?

The right attitude is at times putting your personal beliefs and feelings aside this many many in the NHS do

That you don’t want the vaccine is a choice but if you are to work with vulnerable people it shouldn’t be. It’s proved by numbers that the vaccine is working, it’s still a working progress but we are still in a pandemic that is the reason why

You also need to be a team player which is essential. Staff taking off numerous self isolating periods because of close contact isn’t being a team player (for many this is playing the system I would love a jolly at home doing nothing for 10 days) other staff having to consider your vaccination status is also a pita and stressful

I suspect the doctor who was filmed putting his point across has bored his colleagues to tears and I very much doubt they support him. We have an anti vaccine lecturing idiot on our team it’s tiresome and annoying and adds to the already stressful situation

@Walking4You

Going forward we want new doctors and nurses going into the profession with the right attitude as well as the right qualifications.”

Hmm I’m wondering what the right attitude means?

Eg does it mean always agreeing to do over time/extra surgery etc… because the NHS is short staffed and there is a long waiting list?
Even though for the surgeon/GP/consultant this likely means a pension fine too? (Yes consultants are getting hefty fine for working too much because then they are contributing too much to their pension 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️)

Does it mean agreeing that no patient should ever end up dehydrated because you didn’t give them water/ensure they could drunk on their own?
Many HCP would fail that one atm. The care is appauling (see also the fact the many NHS have raised serious incidents etc…)

Does it mean they should be happy to do 14 12 hours shifts one after the other (as in no breaks/weekend type of thing) oh and do some night shifts in the middle too.
They already are doing that.

Or do you mean that they are supposed to be this homogenous group that just say ‘Yes Sir’ wo ever questioning the reason for the decision re vaccine?

No.

They shouldn't be yes sirs.

However they should have a good understanding of ethics and good patient care.

Understanding ethics means doing things like whistleblowing where appropriate and understanding how important trust is to the patient relationship and how your actions as a HCP matter.

If you are a HCP you should believe in these things as fundamental principles and you should have trust in those making decisions on approval of medicines (which is separate and different to Big Pharma and trusting Big Pharma - the difference is crucial to understand).

All the other stuff is in real terms secondary to these beliefs otherwise you are just going through the motions of what you are told and don't give a shit about your patients anyway.

@RedToothBrush

But the "right attitude" in this case means doing illogical things for which there is not compelling science.

So as I said above the "right attitude" is an ideological position and not a scientific or a medical one.

Which may make some people feel safe and comforted in the short term as it fulfils their desire to cling onto the idea that these vaccines are the solution to everything, but ideology has no place in evidence based medicine.

I think it is insane that people have so much to say about this guy but nothing to say on our government mandating a vaccine which has not finished its trials, and which is proving to be hugely less effective than initially predicted. Any sensible thinking person must accept that there are also questions on safety that are currently unanswered (the European Medecines Agency is perfectly transparent on that).

The ball is not in the court of this doctor. It is firmly in the court of governing bodies to explain why they think mandating a pharmaceutical which has not finished its trials, which is not proving to have even medium term efficacy in preventing infection and transmission, which has incomplete safety data and which most people do not need (especially if they have had covid) is in any way ethical and acceptable.

And another subject that seems to get lost whilst people focus on this guy is that Pfizer, Moderna et al are making billions out of their not very good vaccines. When are we going to talk about that? They are raking it in on vaccines that work not very well for not very long (in terms of infection, transmission and herd immunity). But no let's forget that and focus on scapegoating individuals who don't have the "right attitude".

The honest conversation now is that these vaccines appear to contribute to a reduction in severity of disease for the individual (no doubt along with natural immunity and current virus mutation). Which is good but so not a compelling reason to mandate them.

And I'm sorry but your life jacket analogy is beyond ridiculous.

We are talking about a novel pharmaceutical that is injected into people. A pharmaceutical which has not finished its trials and which is already not performing as predicted and which is throwing up unexpected safety concerns.

And people waffling on about life jackets, seat belts and all the other silly analogies that you regularly see give me the willies as they are so detached from reality.

I have said what I think about the vaccine. It’s working and it’s a working progress as we are still in a pandemic. I wouldn’t expect the vaccine not to be tweaked as I know the virus is still mutating at a high rate.

Not one expert would claim anything different if you read what they actually are telling us.

But that doesn’t really satisfy us in general we want a straightforward answer that doesn’t change we can’t have that at present and we have to live with being uncomfortable with that

But the vaccines are working that can not be denied we only have to look at hospital admissions and deaths to know that

Tbh beach i think you would disagree and protest whatever my thoughts were on the subject because you are so hostile to the idea of any restrictions whatsoever.

I've explained my position and why i think its reasonable and fair.

Perhaps we should turn this around and ask why you think its reasonable to expose others at risk when they are in a position of trust and authority and the patient has no other option but to be there (worker can choose to leave if they don't agree with vaccines).

I can't for the life of me understand why you would want to work for an employer who was encouraging vaccines for all but a tiny number of exceptions if you felt that was highly inappropriate and a significantly higher risk to you and others than covid itself. Especially if you regularly see covid patients or understand how much isolating is having an impact on colleagues and patients.

So i think Ive said my piece and leave you to rant on further.

As a rule I am pragmatic and lean towards on balance real world thinking. I'm not sure everyone does.