To the non-vaxxers who work for the NHS- do we have a leg to stand on?

[LMonkey]

So it's looking like vaccines will become mandatory for all NHS workers from April next year...where on earth can we go fro here?
I really dont want to get in to a vaccine debate. I have strong feelings as to why I don't want the vaccine. I'm a med sec and don't see any patients any way, or go anywhere near them. But regardless of this I strongly feel NOBODY should be forced to have any vaccine. Do we have a leg to stand on? I mean it's not lawful to force an employee to have a vaccine but if the government make it compulsory for nhs staff is there any way round it do you think? This really is causing me enormous amounts of stress. I really don't know what to do (please don't anyone say "get the vaccine"). I'd love to hear from others in the same boat or from a legal standpoint.

[quote me4real]@LMonkey I think the deaths/clots were mainly from the Astra Zeneca vaccine. That one isn't being used so much now, they've gone quiet about it. The risks from the other vaccines aren't as high from what I gather.

Some trusts etc/work environments already insist those working there have the Hep B vaccine.

I'm pro-vax but it's worth people trying to mount a legal challenge if they feel strongly about it. A lot of the Covid stuff is being overturned when challenged in court, at least on an individual level.

Have a look online and I'm sure you can find groups intending to challenge the compulsory jab for NHS workers etc.[/quote]
I agree with this. I think a legal challenge should be mounted about mandatory vaccinations for NHS workers because I think the outcome would put a hell of a lot of misinformation about vaccine risks and human rights to rest. It will come down to whether the court deems the vaccine causes irreversible harm.

Interestingly, there was a challenge to mandatory vaccination launched in Greece in the European Court of Human Rights. The court decided that there wasn’t enough evidence that the vaccines cause irreversible harm, or that the consequences of not having the vaccine were irreversible so it’s likely a challenge from the UK would see the same conclusion.

Info here on the Greek case if anyone is interested: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/compulsory-vaccination-what-does-human-rights-law-say-167735

There was also a Czech case pre-covid in which the court ruled mandatory vaccination for infants was legal, so although that’s not a direct precedent it would suggest unless there’s direct evidence of irreversible harm, the courts would rule in the governments favour.

@Winter2019

And when people ask, why not get the bloody vaccine? Errrr.. cause it's not been tested enough,they've come up with it fairly quickly and some of us are not sheep

Following a different shepherd doesn’t make you any less of a sheep.

“Sheep” too @Winter2019 - you are really reading from the script aren’t you, you free thinker you. 😂

@Winter2019

And when people ask, why not get the bloody vaccine? Errrr.. cause it's not been tested enough,they've come up with it fairly quickly and some of us are not sheep

It is the most widely tested and deployed vaccine in human history. To say ‘it’s not been tested’ is simply bollocks.

‘I’m not a sheep’ - good job really. Sheep in this country are routinely vaccinated to ensure the health of the herd. If they had a choice in the matter, we’d have a shot ton of dead sheep and not a lot of Shepard’s pie.

I don't think anyone is forcing you to have the vaccine. As in any other job, follow the rules or move jobs.

@Bettyboopawoop

Rosette were they not given meds in the 50's that caused people to be thaliamoid

Thalidomide wasn't a vaccine.

@Conflictedboobs the thing is though how do they know it WONT cause irreversible harm? As in, it's only been around for a couple of years, how do they know in ten years your arm won't drop off?

I'm obviously not suggesting it will but how can they say with certainty that it won't happen? (Not the arm obv, any harm)

Again not anti vaxxing, I've had it, but wondering how they can come to that decision.

@Winter2019

And when people ask, why not get the bloody vaccine? Errrr.. cause it's not been tested enough,they've come up with it fairly quickly and some of us are not sheep

How many millions of people do you think is acceptable to use for 'testing'?

If you've done any research at all you would understand how it was developed so 'quickly' (it wasn't)

And the sheep are all the idiots people who have used Facebook as the place for research

[quote Getyourarseofffthequattro]@Conflictedboobs the thing is though how do they know it WONT cause irreversible harm? As in, it's only been around for a couple of years, how do they know in ten years your arm won't drop off?

I'm obviously not suggesting it will but how can they say with certainty that it won't happen? (Not the arm obv, any harm)

Again not anti vaxxing, I've had it, but wondering how they can come to that decision.[/quote]
Because they know how it works?

[quote Getyourarseofffthequattro]@Conflictedboobs the thing is though how do they know it WONT cause irreversible harm? As in, it's only been around for a couple of years, how do they know in ten years your arm won't drop off?

I'm obviously not suggesting it will but how can they say with certainty that it won't happen? (Not the arm obv, any harm)

Again not anti vaxxing, I've had it, but wondering how they can come to that decision.[/quote]
Really glad you asked that (genuinely). I heard a piece on the radio where a vaccine creator was discussing this: basically, the ‘active ingredient’ in the vaccines has a lifespan of 36 hours. After that, it doesn’t ‘do’ anything else. It’s a bit like you eating a carrot and then asking what the implications of that carrot are in 10 years - well there are none, because it’s not active in 10 years. All the effects of the vaccine happen in 36 hours. In incredibly rare cases, that causes blood clots to form which is the main risk and it’s those blood clots which then are causing problems that can be life threatening and can go on longer. In most cases, it has a few mild side effects that wear off once the active bit has finished doing it’s thing. Basically, if you’re fine after 36 hours, you’re fine.

Because they know how it works?

They know how it works yes but how can they know of any long term side effects that might occur because nobody has had it that long?
Again I'm not suggesting it's something I expect to happen I'm just curious to how they can say it absolutely won't.

Thank you for explaining that @Conflictedboobs that's actually quite reassuring isn't it?

I do worry especially with ds that I may unwittingly give him something we think is fine now and find out years down the line is harmful in some way.

@LMonkey

I am completely with u op 100% . But your not going to get anything out this thread. I can't even read this thread anymore. Infuriates me.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Because they know how it works?

They know how it works yes but how can they know of any long term side effects that might occur because nobody has had it that long?
Again I'm not suggesting it's something I expect to happen I'm just curious to how they can say it absolutely won't.

There is no mechanism by which the vaccine could have implications in 10 years time. There isn’t anything about it which has implications beyond the first 36 hours unless you have a very very rare adverse reaction which you’d know about immediately. Once those 36 hours are over, it doesn’t ‘do’ anything else.

Some people come on here only to argue and to try to prove their "truth". Silly
As for the OP's question, so far it seems like you don't have a choice,I mean a real one but hopefully something will change for the best

@Derbee

Get another job. But hopefully it won’t be too long before everyone in every job needs to be vaccinated, and it catches up with you at some point

Wow 😯 I do wonder about people who post things like this, what kind of life must they have that all this bitterness and bile just spills out of you....just a couple of sentences but dripping with disdain, is it pure personal unhappiness maybe?

Although I suppose my next question would be, how do you know you're fine. I mean you know you're not dead or dying obviously, but for instance what if it did kick something off in those 36 hours, but it sort of didn't present itself. Using infertility as an example (I know this has been disproved but it's the only example I can think of where it may not be an issue until it's an issue iyswim) how do we know we haven't done damage now but find out layer when we have a reason to check?

Sort of like different cancers being found years after various events as a result of those events, but only discovered when it sort of showed it's face if that makes sense?

I'm genuinely not being goady or argumentative it genuinely interests me and it's the one reservation I have about vaccinating tinies.

Completely agree with OP and feel sorry for OP and others in this position.

People need to look at page 20 of this link on the government website showing the most recent data of positive cases per 100,000 vaccinated and unvaccinated people. It shows, in many age groups, you’re actually a lot more likely to catch Covid if vaccinated. This shows that vaccine passports and practically mandating these vaccines is completely wrong.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1031157/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-44.pdf

People need to look at the actual data on transmission instead of believing all the media scaremongering which is creating the division demonstrated on this thread. Also, consider all the side effects of the vaccines reported on the Government’s Yellow Card website before making people feel guilty about not having them. That’s only the short term reported side effects, we don’t know what any long term effects may be so comparing with vaccines which have been around for years and we have more safety data for is completely unreasonable.

I personally can’t see them being made mandatory for health staff (including carers) as we already have such a shortage as it is, I think the government are just using scare tactics to try get as many people as possible to have them.

BTW, I’m not anti-vaxx, I’m just going by what data we have at the moment.

@Lakes74 👏🏼👏🏼

It shows, in many age groups, you’re actually a lot more likely to catch Covid if vaccinated.

Isn't that because most adults have been vaccinated?
Doesn't the data show that it is still the unvaccinated that take up most of the ICU beds?

@Getyourarseofffthequattro

Thank you for explaining that *@Conflictedboobs* that's actually quite reassuring isn't it?

I do worry especially with ds that I may unwittingly give him something we think is fine now and find out years down the line is harmful in some way.

I totally understand. I caught covid when I was 18 weeks pregnant and was very very poorly. My husband also contracted it at the same time and ended up on o2. He is still suffering long covid now a year later and has developed sudden onset diabetes which they’re just linking now back to covid.

People think the risk of covid is a light cough and a cold or death but it isn’t - there are degrees of severity and the real threat is long covid. It’s a total bastard.

I believe in choice and I genuinely think people need to make their own risk assessments, but that assessment needs to be based on evidence and genuine facts. The problem is we live in a post-truth age where information is disseminated in memes and Chinese whispers and we have zero trust in a government that lies constantly.

The biggest issue though is that we no longer trust experts. We as layman are trying to understand the complex workings of a vaccine - something none of us actually understand. But we now have access to so much information that we’re unable to sieve what’s real and what’s poor interpretation of half truths.

Yep all good points @Conflictedboobs it's hard to know who to believe sometimes. The government have done an excellent job in creating reasons for us not to trust them.

It's the unknowns that scare people and I think that's natural isn't it.

@LMonkey

How am I not being forced?? How easy do you think it is to just go out and get another job?? I have kids to look after, a house to pay for. I've worked my arse off for the NHS for the past 10 years and now I am effectively having a gun held to my head. Not all of us have a partner who can financially support an entire family. Why bother replying if you're going to be so small minded? Ive been feeling really low about this and i actually thought I might hear from some supportive people on mumsnet, but no. You've clicked on this thread to have a go at someone because you aren't capable of seeing it from another person's point of view. I'm done

So the thing is that people who choose to work in a healthcare environment where vulnerable people are treated should have to be vaccinated to prevent further infections. All nhs students have a requirement that ALL vaccinations are up to date and have to have a few more than the general population before the even see a hospital!

@LMonkey

17:30Muchtoomuchtodo

@LMonkey, Can you tell us more about your reasons for not having the vaccine?

There are unarguably reasons as to why we should question any vaccine, especially this one. This is a vaccine which was rushed. There's no long term data for it. We have no idea what effect it will have on peoples bodies 10, 15, 20 years down the line. WE KNOW people have died from blood clots. I know 2 people myself. Fit , healthy, young people. WE KNOW it can cause myocarditis in younger people. It's also clear as bloody day THAT IT DOES NOT STOP TRANSMISSION. If people are happy to accept it, to protect THEMSELVES from extreme disease, then by all means have it. That's your choice.I dont want it.

So 72 people out of 60 odd million died from a blood clot and you personally knew two of them? Yeah right

Ah, Lakes74 how did I know you would be along with your twisted interpretation of the data? The table you refer to is unadjusted data (this is stated very clearly) and also references pages 13-15 of the document (which I imagine you would prefer people not to read because it offers guidance on interpretation.

I hope the people on this thread actually read in accordance with what is stated in the document and ignore your distortion of it. You are using it as antivaxx propaganda, which is highly irresponsible.