that is one brave doctor

[MrsLargeEmbodied]

to speak about not having the vaccination
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/08/nhs-doctor-challenges-sajid-javid-over-covid-vaccination-rules

he has had a lot of support

@Belladonna12

It's really not miniscule, unfortunately at the moment - But is it higher than risk of clinical negligence due to understaffing?

We won't know that that there will be understaffing because of the mandate though. Some will get vaccinated rather than lose their jobs and some may be employed from overseas.

Look at the Care sector and the numbers who have left because of mandatory vaccines. Covid means countries will need and value healthcare staff in the future, its also immoral to take staff from developing countries and then there is the '000s in health cover they need to work here.

Bonkers to insist on vaccines that at best offer less than 3 months immunity and where their patients have either been vaxxed or already have CV.

Ah well, maybe he can go and work abroad. I've heard that Australia and the UAE are good for doctors

@Lilianne2001
Personally I'd make the flu jab mandatory for HCP too, but to answer your question it's not political (governments of all different sometimes completely opposing politics around the world are doing the same thing). It's because SARS-COV-2 is NOT the flu. It is also, unlike the flu, a still new disease (and possibly human modified in a lab).

A pandemic of a new disease is an extraordinary situation that requires new safety measures.

Vaccine Plus (as opposed to Vaccine Just) is our way back to normal - or at least, as close to it as is possible under the circumstances.

Vaccines, masks, good ventilation (HEPA filters or corsi-rosenthal boxes in schools, hospitals, etc) are mitigations that (amongst other things including more of the world vaccinated and wider availability of new treatments) get us closer to normal.

Vaccine Plus (as opposed to Vaccine Just) is our way back to normal

How so with vaccines that do not prevent infection and transmission and a virus that has mutated to be more vaccine resistant?

And what do you mean by "normal"?

There is nothing "normal" about government's obliging people to be injected with pharmaceutical products which have not finished their clinical trials and which have such poor effectiveness.

Many people seem to think that the solution to these vaccines not being good at preventing infection is to use them all the more. Which is not only illogical, it has also not been examined for safety to the individual or for the wider community.

www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/more-than-90-of-omicron-cases-in-denmark-are-vaccinated-individuals-government-data-show/amp/

How so with vaccines that do not prevent infection and transmission and a virus that has mutated to be more vaccine resistant?

It's been repeatedly stated by experts that, particularly with the boosters, the vaccines do still work well in helping to prevent serious illness and death (and reduce the likelihood of transmission - and, as the WHO have said, also of mutations developing).

Many doctors and hospitals have reported that the majority of their ICU patients, sometimes all of them, are unvaccinated.

(and reduce the likelihood of transmission - and, as the WHO have said, also of mutations developing)

By how much?

We are talking about mandates for pharmaceutical products which are being used under conditional marketing authorisation and which have not finished their clinical trials. On which we do not have long term safety data. IMO you would need to have pretty good effectiveness against infection and transmission in order to justify that (and you would need decent longevity).

The latest info from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is saying that some early data shows a 37% rate of vaccine effectiveness for the booster against Omicron (and that is not counting for waning over time).

So what's your figure? What's the number where you start to say that mandating vaccines cannot be justified? Maybe for you there is no number - maybe you are OK with mandating vaccines with a 37% immediate effectiveness which can only wane over time but many people are not.

And that's for boosters. 2 doses had a vaccine effectiveness rate of 6%.

So the mandate is for an immediate effectiveness of 6%. That's pathetic.

You can read the study here www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v1.full.pdf

Conclusions
Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against Omicron infection. While VE against Omicron infection is substantially lower than against Delta infection, a third dose of mRNA vaccine affords some level of protection against Omicron infection in the immediate term. However, the duration of this protection and effectiveness against severe disease are uncertain. Additional tools beyond the currently available vaccines, such as public health measures, antivirals, and updated vaccines, are likely needed to protect against Omicron infection.

Like the doctor said - the science is just not compelling enough for this mandate. If the government has any sense (and integrity) they will use Omicron to backtrack by admitting that it is a game changer and they are updating their policy to reflect that.

@Minecraftlover

'We need as many people as possible to get vaccinated to get ourselves out of this mess'

Why?

The vaccines don't stop transmission. They go some way to reducing transmission, and arguably reduce the severity of illness. So yes, it appears to be in the best interests of older/vulnerable individuals to take the vaccines to protect themselves if they so wish.

However, for someone who is young fit and healthy, particularly when recovered from covid (such as myself), why on earth would it make sense to take a vaccine that has shown to induce serious side effects in some cases, and that only offers some protection for a very short time? The long term effects of these vaccines are still unknown and will remain so for many years. Many women have reported period changes. Many young male adults with heart issues. Some reports of neurological type issues. Of course anyone who feels the benefit outweighs the risk should take the vaccines. I personally do not feel for myself that the benefit outweighs the risk. I am also not willing to take the vaccines just to go on holiday or go to restaurants. I already live a very simple quiet life so feel I reduce transmission risks in many ways. Covid for me was incredibly mild and I am always careful for the sake of others around me.

Just my 2 pence. I respect anyone who disagrees.

Agree!!!

@Turquoisesea.
100% support for what you wrote!

I'd imagine that some medics might be opposing the mandate simply because they believe in personal choice and that this may be the thin end of the wedge.

Also the government has failed to provide adequate risk reduction in many NHS workplaces (ffp2 masks) which would definitely reduce transmission.

I am incredibly pro-vaccine but I don't think anyone should be forced to have it, and I also think this move by the government speaks more of trying to control and break the health service rather than reduce covid transmission.

If they wanted to reduce covid transmission in hospital they could give all staff ffp2 masks, and invest in adequate ventilation and air filtration in all NHS settings. None of which they're doing. As well as generally funding the NHS more (and increasing pay for nurses) so they're not short staffed and can more easily separate covid and non-covid healthcare.

They're trying to force the vaccine on medics at the same time as reducing length of isolation, which will almost certainly result in more transmission.

I'm pro-vaccine to protect my own individual health but if I were a doctor or nurse I'd oppose this mandate.

imagine that some medics might be opposing the mandate simply because they believe in personal choice

Well clearly they don't believe in personal choice. Because of course personal choice works two ways.

Somebody who doesn't believe in science and medicine is free to make the personal choice to seek more appropriate alternative employment.

And, the science and medicine based employer should have the freedom to not have staff who don't trust science and medicine.

HCP have a (legal and moral) duty of care to the ones without any choice. Their vulnerable patients.

As for FFP2/3 masks. Yes they should have these. As well as vaccines. Like the WHO says - Vaccine Plus.

Many doctors and hospitals have reported that the majority of their ICU patients, @Tealightsanddabsolutely. Gone up to 61% unvaccinated in ICU in December I think according to ICNARC data.

Why did I get deleted for linking to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control website and citing figures and a study they cite???

[quote Beachcomber]www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/more-than-90-of-omicron-cases-in-denmark-are-vaccinated-individuals-government-data-show/amp/[/quote]
No idea what happened with your other post, but just in response to the one above

The majority of people in Denmark are vaccinated hence the headline you posted. But - proportionally, the unvaccinated make up a higher percentage of those seriously ill.

Yes you're right @Northsoutheastwest76

@Tealightsandd

Did you read the article I linked to or the report it is about?

It doesn't say anything about which demographic is the most ill.

It says that there are proportionally more cases of Omicron in fully vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people.

Of the 17,767 Omicron infections (as per December 15) registered in Denmark since the first case was reported on Nov. 22, more than 14,000 were among people with dual vaccinations.

Those who had received booster vaccination accounted for another 10.6% of cases of the new variant, and single-dose injectors accounted for another 1.8%. The unvaccinated, about one-fifth of the Danish population, accounted for only 8.5 percent of Omicron infections.

This is official data from the Danish health ministry so I hope it won't get deleted the way I seem to have been deleted for linking to official data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control...

Yes it says cases. I'm referring to serious illness and ICU admissions.

But also the unvaccinated will only account for a relatively small number of their cases. Because in Denmark, they are a minority. Like it says, 4/5 of the Danish population are vaccinated.

@Tealightsandd

Yes it says cases. I'm referring to serious illness and ICU admissions.

What in Denmark?

The report that the article is about doesn't say anything about that. Where are you getting your data from?

www.docdroid.com/C9UY7Ef/dk-serum-institut-rapport-omikronvarianten-21122021-14tk-pdf#page=8

The report says that there are 47 hospitalizations related to Omicron and less than 5 ICU admissions. It says nothing about their vaccine status. Can you link to the data on that that you are referring to?

Don't you think that it is a matter of interest and potentially concern that the Danish figures show that proportionally more vaccinated than unvaccinated people have caught Omicron?

@Tealightsandd

But also the unvaccinated will only account for a relatively small number of their cases. Because in Denmark, they are a minority. Like it says, 4/5 of the Danish population are vaccinated.

The potential concern is not the number of cases it is the proportion.

Well we're not in Denmark. It seems from your post that they have a very low number of hospitalisations. Which is quite the opposite of here in the UK (at least in England).

Sounds like, given the very low number of hospitalisations in highly vaccinated Denmark (four fifths of the population) that the vaccines are working well.

Or omicron is mild.

It is of concern that infection is happening at such high rates in vaccinated populations however.

It may come to nothing but the concern is that this is a sign of original antigenic sin occurring in vaccinated populations.

We are not in Denmark but they are known to have very comprehensve data so it is probably wise to keep an eye on it.

Plus if vaccinated populations are being infected at rates as high or even higher than unvaccinated populations, mandating vaccines to prevent infection and transmission in health care situations is nonsensical.

I’m happy to pay for the vaccine and those should who can afford to I think. Those of low incomes should get it free, those with serious health conditions.

I think the doctor who challenged Javad was wrong, no need to make his point in this public way.