Hope okay to put this here - mandates

[EmmaH2022]

An extract from Hansard, in which an MP, very much too little too late, says this..

"I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch chairs. The APPG looks at vaccine injuries, and we had what I think was our first meeting last week in a Committee room in Portcullis House. I am afraid there were only a tiny handful of colleagues there, but well over a hundred members of the public attended, which is not the usual story for an APPG. I felt somewhat ashamed, on behalf of Parliament, that that was the first time that those members of the public—including families of the bereaved, who are themselves injured citizens—had had the opportunity to be in a room with members of this House, but I am very pleased that we are having this debate, and particularly pleased that there is an opportunity for members of the public to hear from the Minister on this topic.......

Although many questions about our covid response need to be answered, the UK is by no means the worst offender. We are not Canada, New Zealand or China—places where Governments think they can exterminate covid by depriving their population of the most basic civil liberties. However, I am afraid that we still have many questions to ask ourselves, and even much to be ashamed of. I put on record that in hindsight I am particularly ashamed of my vote to dismiss care workers who did not want to receive the vaccine. I very much hope that the 40,000 care workers who lost their jobs can be reinstated, and indeed compensated".

Full Hansard notes here
hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-10-24/debates/FF880636-BC3B-4BDB-A5E0-D6D4B82B2888/Covid-19VaccinesSafety

some of you will know that courts in NY - and possibly Alberta now - are overturning some mandates.

there's a petition link for the Uk which I'm putting in the relevant section, as I'm not allowed to put it anywhere else.

of course, it's bloody awful the public paying for this, it should come from pharma profits.

PS I should add, alongside two colleagues, she ignored the shielding letter.

she also doesn't eat carbs so her neighbours got free fruit and pasta!

I think Garysmum might have made a crucial typo in her first sentence.

I did thank you. There was the emission of the word NOT.
I don't think the unvaccinated HCPS should have been dismissed.
But in contradiction I would always rather be seen by a vaccinated HCP. Though how would I know if someone was vaccinated or not.

Thinking about it further, if it's not mentioned why would I think about someone's vaccination status normally - because I don't. The only time I really don't want to see HCPs is when they are actively unwell themselves - with a cough, fever, tummy bug etc

One of my friends just left their NHS post. It's a much needed role, with shortages and delays, so that's one less unvaccinated person to worry about coming across if your life needs saving.

There’s a couple of posters here who I think were on my thread when mum was 16 hours on a trolley in A&E after a suspected heart attack. That’s one thing we muttered about at the time. Imagine caring about whether these fabulous HCPs are vaccinated, forcing them from their jobs. Do people think they are so special that someone will want to do their healthcare - even all the crappy circumstances attached?

I tried to correct my post I don’t think unvaccinated hope should have lost their jobs.
but if you gave me a choice amd that’s if there is a choice I’d prefer vaccinated. No choice then fine. T

Do people think they are so special that someone will want to do their healthcare - even all the crappy circumstances attached?

I think it's fair to say a lot of people who supported the requirement for care workers and the proposed requirement for NHS staff to be vaccinated before the policies were dropped struggled to process the idea that there wasn't automatically going to be a suitable vaccinated person for the job, yes.

There were threads on here where people refused to engage with the reality of the situation and instead split hairs over whether the staff were responsible for their own job losses and whether they were deserving of sympathy in that situation, as though either of those things mattered in the slightest. I remember one about midwives, where nearly all the pregnant women said they were much more afraid of the NHS losing more experienced midwives than they were of encountering one who wasn't fully covid vaccinated.

Now we're much more used to the reality of living in a country with a labour shortage, so there doesn't seem to be as much of the knee jerk assumption that employers can always just get someone else. But a year or so that sentiment was much more common.

Perfectly “I think it's fair to say a lot of people who supported the requirement for care workers and the proposed requirement for NHS staff to be vaccinated before the policies were dropped struggled to process the idea that there wasn't automatically going to be a suitable vaccinated person for the job, yes.”

what happened to common sense? I do notice on MN - preparing for flaming- that a lot of posters struggle with commercial perspectives. But I thought the shortages in care and health were known for years.

I do think that this needs looking into and I am glad that it is happening. I dont think the vaccines are dangerous at all, but I question whether there was need for everyone to be vaccinated. I don't regret having them but the thought of protecting others was paramount in my decision making at the time and if I were to be offered another one I would have to do a lot of weighing up before deciding whether to have it or not. All 3 made me feel quite unwell for a few days which I thought was for "the greater good".

My Dad has cancer and initially I did think that only vaccinated people should be treating him, but I stopped well short of thinking people should lose their jobs over wanting bodily autonomy.

DialsMavis "I dont think the vaccines are dangerous at all"

to the majority, no. But people have died and others suffered permanent damage, referenced in the Hansard link.

I see it as a bit like general anaesthetic or surgery, if you need to have it, you do. But many people had it with no reason, most people weren't in a position to know better. i had it because I was scared of what work options would taken off the table.

it's sad, our family friend who died from it had it because he thought he needed protecting, he was 60 and in robust health.

For someone with no narrative to push, you use language strangely close to the official narrative.

The whole Covid saga shows a hopelessly incapable government who kept acting as conducting the most basic risk-benefit analysis is some kind of unnecessary luxury, and whose method of choice for communicating with people was cranking up panic levels.. A government only willing to listen to "science" as long as it suits them - a bit like Tony Blair and his Iraq dossier.

And the story of those "independent scientists" who kept claiming that there is such thing as non-addictive pain killer and that it should be distributed like candy has no parallels whatsoever with the Covid saga? Just one more story of real-life people ending dead to be casually dismissed with a "we had that already"?

Speaking of dead people, is anyone ever going to investigate why healthy people living in care homes were forced to live with infected people ejected from hospitals (to make room for the predicted 500,000 Covid patients that never materialised) - with easy to predict results?

For someone with no narrative to push, you use language strangely close to the official narrative.

What do you mean? I've never seen anyone in government make a statement even close to what I've said? @DaSilvaP

I've said I don't think it was the right thing to do, not sure how that's the "official narrative" or what that even is anymore.

DaSilvaP "Speaking of dead people, is anyone ever going to investigate why healthy people living in care homes were forced to live with infected people ejected from hospitals (to make room for the predicted 500,000 Covid patients that never materialised) - with easy to predict results?"

exactly. Nothing about it screams "disease control", especially for those who were very ill.

@EmmaH2022

I think it’s very important to extrapolate the science from the politics.

Mandates were being used globally and varied in their implementation from country to country. I’d see that more as a political decision and I can see the debate around that. My opinion is : no one wanted them, I think that freedom of choice should exist - BUT we were in an emergency situation and no one had a crystal ball or knew what might happen next. If a mandate could save and protect the lives of many vulnerable people in an emergency situation - I would go for a mandate. I would no longer want that mandate once the critical situation had passed. It’s very easy to look back in hindsight and criticise the loss of jobs - while forgetting the huge death toll in care homes. I’m afraid I would save a life over a job.

What I have a real ‘bug bear’ with is that people THEN use this to question the science. Science IS awe inspiring. We have the most brilliant minds globally working meticulously on viruses and vaccines. The overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is that the vaccine is safe - and far, far safer than your risk from Covid.

You cannot CANNOT base decision making on pseudoscience, unverified claims, hunches, anecdotal evidence, books by people who are not qualified and perhaps show their political persuasions by hobnobbing with the likes of Farage, fringe studies and YouTube videos. What would happen to public health if medicine continually sided with ‘fringe’ science that has not been robustly reviewed/tested/regulated - or with the view of Auntie Vera’s hairdresser (as someone put it on another thread)?

Well I'm a nurse in Australia and I lost my job last September.
Haven't worked for a year.
Healthcare here is totally understaffed and inefficient.
Australia's solution is to hire more foreign nurses.
I got absolutely slammed on here this time last year. The abuse was full on over my choice.
Nothing compared to real life though.
It was a very difficult year
Mandates are destroying lives.

@MrsMorrisey

I think mandates are a really difficult area. I don’t think it’s something that anyone wants - people should be free to choose. But - I would go for saving a life over saving a job - in a critical situation. Once the emergency has passed, the mandate should go.

It’s mandates destroying lives v’s mandates saving lives. On balance do they save more lives than they destroy? In an emergency situation - I think they’d save more lives.

I’m sorry that you’ve had a difficult year.

but in reality, she's had four vaccines and three bouts of covid.
@EmmaH2022 and maybe one of those bouts would have landed her in ITU if not vaccinated.

@hamstersarse

but that’s simply not true, and you probably hold that mindset because you are focussing purely on cherry picked fringe science and an echo chamber of misinformation

www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/08/22/vaccinating-students-and-staff-protected-vulnerable-groups-from-covid-19

@hamstersarse it's not very effective to lie about your post when tons of people have seen it.

You said regarding vaccines: "They never protected anyone"

This is presumably why it was deleted, because it's patently untrue, and it's silly to try and claim you said something entirely different.

There's literally no point in attempting to debate mandates when you do not have a good understanding.

(you put the never in bold - I'm guessing to really hammer home this view you hold)

You've had so many posts deleted over the past couple of years, and don't seem to take on board any information posters share with you, including those who are evidently pretty qualified in science/medicine.

@hamstersarse

I'm not sure why you think this is a "gotcha" though?

This has been posted many a-time before but........

Yes - much of the trial data in various substudies showed 100% effectivness. This isn't a number pulled out of thin air, or lies from Pfizer, it's literally what is calculated when no-one in the treatment arm got COVID.

Due to the high rates of SARS-COV-2, and other biological factors, the virus had a very high mutation rate (evidenced by all the new emergent variants). This meant real world efficacy very rapidly waned, which is why recent estimates for original vaccine efficacy are much lower.

At the time mandates were being proposed vaccine efficacy was still very good - vaccination significantly reduced both likelihood of infection (and if you are not infected you cannot transmit), and onward transmission. Many studies have been posted on this - such as those from the REACT study.

Overall, there would therefore be far less transmission to patients from a cohort of vaccinated HCPs compared to a cohort of unvaccinated HCPs. This was the rationale for proposing mandates.

Clearly there are many other factors at play as to why mandates were a bad idea - not least trying to implement policies in such a fast evolving situation - but the things you are claiming do not make sense.

At the same time as mandates were being pushed, we were also at threat of further winter lockdown. Why?