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.

I don’t think vaccines should be mandatory, you should have a choice.

I have been vaccinated once, I don’t plan on getting the second jab.

I guess realistically, as it’s mandatory, it is either a case of get vaccinated, or look for employment that doesn’t require you to be vaccinated. I can’t advise you on the legalities though.

@SliceOfCakeCupOfTea

The thing is, you're not being forced. You're being told that to continue working for that company you need to be vaccinated. So you are free to leave and remain unvaccinated if you want.

When I worked on cruise ships I had to have a whole host of vaccines before I could join the ship. If I refused I wouldn't have been able to work there.

‘before I joined the ship’. This person is already on the ship.

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

This is why it's dangerous sometimes to have data available to the public- it gets twisted.
something like 87% of the population has been vaccinated. Of course that majority isomer likely to catch covid in pure numbers terms, it is many times a bigger sample group that the unvaccinated population. The number of people who are in hospitals, unwell, though is flipped- it's vastly more likely to be the unvaccinated.

Last post here, this thread has done my head. in.

Would you refuse the vaccine if It affected children like it does the elderly and vunreable.

If people start refusing MMR, whooping cough etc, many babies etc could die.

The vaccine is already wearing off so can't even be that bloody strong.

Or let's all stop vaccinating and wearing masks and refusing medication and treatment...survival of the fittest?

No one is forcing anyone to have the vaccine. You have the choice to work for a different employer. Surgeons and other medical staff must have vaccines for Hepatitis and other diseases. They are not forced to have it. They can make a choice to change jobs. Likewise Muslim woman who wish to be completely covered, including their faces, can’t work in teaching. They are not forced to dress differently, they simply can’t do that job if they choose not to do so.

It's compulsorily where I am for HCPs - not sure about support staff. One member of the team where I'm seen (who only does one day a week) isn't vaccinated and gets round it by doing regular tests - not sure if that could work for you or if it might be an option in the U.K.? Personally as a CEV patient needing regular treatment I am very happy that those providing my care are vaccinated!

Witchwithacat

I have been vaccinated once, I don’t plan on getting the second jab.”

Curious, why?

@RacketeerRalph

And I don't understand it when literally no other vaccine is mandatory.

That’s rubbish. Various vaccines are required in various jobs

No, as I said and if you look at the table, the rates are per 100,000 vaccinated and 100,000 unvaccinated so completely comparable.

Oh god, I take a couple of hours off to watch a movie, I come back and find people trying to use the UKHSA/PHE case data for comparative purposes.

First, the issue of how problematic the NIMS denominator is has been incredibly well-trodden, especially for sub-70yo age groups. It significantly over counts the population, and therefore overcounts the unvaccinated population (we have exact numbers for vaccinated obviously.) UKHSA has dug its heels in on using this despite being told off by the stats

Second, they literally say in the reports that this data should not be used for comparative purposes for a range of others issues that have nothing to do with the denominator, including evidence from ONS that one factor in choices not to vaccinate can be recent recovery from Covid (so there may be a disproportionate level of immunity already in that population.)

But the denominator is the main issue here. Here’s some more information - great summary in the FT.

James Ward, Oliver Johnson, John Burns Murdoch et al give good explanations on Twitter if the words of David Norgrove, head of the UK Statistics Authority isn’t enough. (He said ‘Those numbers were misleading and wrong and we’ve made it very clear to UKHSA.’)

So no. They’re not completely comparable. Or comparable at all. Sorry, @Lakes74, but hopefully that’s clarified now and if not do go and look at some of the clever Twitter folk I mentioned, they also have modelling with ONS data (which over represents elderly groups but is much closer on all other age groups and is probably a better overall denominator.)

Next!

@RacketeerRalph So the Surgeons in your NHS Trust don’t have to be vaccinated to perform surgery. That’s rubbish!

*stats watchdog. Must finish sentences!

@NoDecentHandlesLeft

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

This is why it's dangerous sometimes to have data available to the public- it gets twisted.
something like 87% of the population has been vaccinated. Of course that majority isomer likely to catch covid in pure numbers terms, it is many times a bigger sample group that the unvaccinated population. The number of people who are in hospitals, unwell, though is flipped- it's vastly more likely to be the unvaccinated.

Last post here, this thread has done my head. in.

As I’ve already stated more than once the rates are completely comparable as they are per 100,000 vaccinated and unvaccinated people so I’m not twisting it.

I’m actually very pro-vaxx - in the case of these vaccines, for people in ‘at risk’ groups who NEED it or those who want it. Scientists have openly said on tv recently they aren’t effective at preventing transmission, so for people on here to try make the OP feel guilty when she’s come on looking for support is completely wrong.

I haven’t come on here to fall out with anyone or post anything which isn’t true, just a report from a government website to try offer support to the OP and try to make people understand why some people don’t want it and that they aren’t being selfish and not to make them feel guilty. That’s all.

It’s done my head in aswell, so much division caused by the media mainly. We’re still finding out new information/data all the time, we should just stay open-minded and support each other.

Goodnight 😴

As I’ve already stated more than once the rates are completely comparable as they are per 100,000 vaccinated and unvaccinated people so I’m not twisting it.

Yes you are, and no they’re not. And it’s not just randoms on the Internet saying so, it’s the head of the UK statistics watchdog saying so.

@Coyoacan

How horrible all the posts here are. It is not choice when you have to lose your job. I despair of the English and how willingly people give up their freedoms and I say that as someone who is vaccinated

Agree! It's not a choice at all when you are made unemployed. It's not even like she is patient facing and the transmission data is dubious at best. I wouldn't be surprised if by that point more data has come out to show the vaccine doesn't reduce transmission

@JassyRadlett

As I’ve already stated more than once the rates are completely comparable as they are per 100,000 vaccinated and unvaccinated people so I’m not twisting it.

Yes you are, and no they’re not. And it’s not just randoms on the Internet saying so, it’s the head of the UK statistics watchdog saying so.

So can you provide a link to an accurate report of real life data showing rates of transmission between the 2 groups? As I’ve said, people on here are trying to make the OP feel guilty that she’s putting others at risk when she isn’t as they don’t reduce transmission as shown in the data and as advised by scientists recently on tv.

Yea some vaccine are mandatory but they are all ones that are fully tested and the manufacturer is liable if there are any problems. Please explain why the drug companies STILL do not accept any liability if anything goes wrong if these vaccines are so perfect?!

@Winter2019 'Wake up, sheeple.'

@SarahBop

It is pointless.

Vaccinated people are still transmitting the virus, so it makes no sense to assume the unvaccinated staff are the issue.

Would be more sensible if they could check antibodies amongst the unvaccinated, that might give them a clearer picture.

Personally I think it's disgusting. Not a coincidence that the government make profit from something they are pushing so hard, is it...

Fight, fight and fight. There are some good letter templates that explain you are not refusing the vaccine, just delaying your decision and that you want the trust to be held liable for any potential damage or injury you receive - they won't sign, because they can't guarantee you won't be vaccine injured or killed.

Please fight, for our kids and grandkids sake....This is means to an end

Love this post

So can you provide a link to an accurate report of real life data showing rates of transmission between the 2 groups? As I’ve said, people on here are trying to make the OP feel guilty that she’s putting others at risk when she isn’t as they don’t reduce transmission as shown in the data and as advised by scientists recently on tv.

Misusing data to comfort someone doesn’t make it better than misusing it and spreading misinformation for more malign purposes.

The data you have said is comparable, isn’t. That statement was flat out untrue, regardless of your motives. You ignored the parts of the report that said they weren’t comparable and went ahead and spread the misinformation anyway.

Reliable surveillance data doing what you want it to do doesn’t exist, for the very simple reason that precise population data doesn’t exist. We know exactly how many have been vaccinated but we don’t know how many haven’t been vaccinated, and relatively small differences in population estimates can have a big impact, particularly because the unvaccinated population is in the significant minority in most age cohorts.

Most statisticians (including David Spiegelhalter at Cambridge and Stian Westlake at the RSS, agree that for under 70s, ONS is probably better but still imperfect.

Some of the modellers I mentioned upthread have run the data with an ONS denominator instead and run it on their Twitter accounts, but it still isn’t a totally reliable picture. That doesn’t exist.

Can you tell me which scientists on TV said they ‘don’t reduce transmission’? Were they talking about the report on household secondary transmission?

Because as I’ve posted upthread, overall impact on transmission is clear.

The current picture is also muddied by the extreme demographics of the current cases. Given the two broad age cohorts for the spikes are teenagers and what is very likely ‘parents of teenagers’ you have to take into account the potential differences in likely behaviours between parents and non-parents when it comes to vaccination in the 40-55 age cohorts. Those sorts of demographic differences can be powerful behavioural drivers. (Eg Parents may be more cautious around health therefore more likely to get vaccinated, extra driver not to get ill because of caring responsibilities, therefore household secondary transmission cases may be more likely in the vaccinated group. That’s only a theory, mind.)

@IBelieveInAThingCalledScience

"They'll lose 5 good nurses".

Nope. They're not good nurses if they refuse to be vaccinated and are happy to endanger patients in their care.

This! I'm am NHS and am horrified that colleagues are willing to put patients at an increased risk plus potentially adding extra burden onto others (as not taking steps via vaccination to minimise having to isolate either due to catching covid or being a close contact). I would not want to be treated by an unvaccinated nurse/Dr and as for my family member receiving chemo, im currently just praying their nurses are vaccinated. I would definitely feel a lot better knowing every one is vaccinated

Are GP's, nurses, reception & clerical stsff working in GP practices going to have to be vaccinated? We are already facing a nursing shortage in the NHS, if staff are going to leave rather than get jabbed the NHS is going to be in a bigger mess than it already is.

Sorry - just found a very good graph (by the OSR) comparing ONS and NIMS denominators in a Full Fact article on this issue (with a read on the off chance you actually want to understand why the data can’t be used in the way you want it to be.

But other vaccines are mandatory in NHS. BSG for one! (although seems there is a shortage of this vaccine in recent years)

@InexperiencedDogOwner

Yea some vaccine are mandatory but they are all ones that are fully tested and the manufacturer is liable if there are any problems. Please explain why the drug companies STILL do not accept any liability if anything goes wrong if these vaccines are so perfect?!

Can I ask do you think no one should have had the vaccine then? You think everyone should have waited for years for long term data? If that had happened the world would still be in full lockdown and would be for years or the health systems would have collapsed. No one knows if the vaccines are perfect but as a population it was our only option.