You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Anti-vaxxers are the people at risk now – and they no longer pose much of an enhanced risk to the rest of us – because we are vaccinated.
They aren't the only ones at risk, there are still the 4.7million clinically vulnerable, like my wife. She's had the vaccine (triple dose, with a fourth due in the spring), but has very very low antibody count so if she caught covid she'd most likely be hospitalised. We both also have a job where we see members of the public every day, key works and high risk. She stopped shielding last summer but had done reduced hours at work.
I respect anti vaxers for their decision, it's up to them what they do, I disagree with it completely though and generally will try to engage in debate when challenged with this choice.
Where I completely disagree is the "sheeple" bolx they spout. Like I said to an anti Vaxer friend at the start 2021 - vaccination only needs the many not the few, but how how many generally determines the speed we get this all over and done with.
The anti Vax brigade have never seemed to come up with an alternative to stop the pandemic with the minimum number of deaths.
We need much more vaccine production world-wide.
This x1000. We need local manufacture where possible so that poorer countries don't automatically shoved to the back of the queue.
In a few years maybe more all you sheeple will laugh/cry/get angry over the powers that had been. Pushing vaccine jabs for a mild flu like virus !!
To post this 3 posts after another poster told you his mum died from covid marks you out as an arsehole of the highest calibre
As for sheeple? I’d say the people that are blindly following in blissful ignorance are the anti vaxxers whom are so lacking in critical thinking and intelligence they listen to the likes of the lady Pondo posted a few pages back
As for sheeple? I’d say the people that are blindly following in blissful ignorance are the anti vaxxers whom are so lacking in critical thinking and intelligence they listen to the likes of the lady Pondo posted a few pages back
Most of what I was going to say in reply has been said, but yes, there's a delicious irony that people who blindly follow blatant unscientific nonsense think the rest of us are the "sheeple"
Baa!
Anti-vaxxers are the people at risk now – and they no longer pose much of an enhanced risk to the rest of us – because we are vaccinated.
Not from Covid, no. But as a constant drag on the health service, they do. 6 hours was how long a cyclist with a broken leg had to wait in Bristol after he was knocked off his bike not a miles from the Hospital. They have to respond immediately to those with breathing difficulties.
The kind of person who carries on talking 'at you' whilst you're literally walking away from them, kinda says it all really 🙂
I've met a few of those, lol!
The anti Vax brigade have never seemed to come up with an alternative to stop the pandemic with the minimum number of deaths.
I've no idea how representative she is but the one who almost certainly infected us doesn't believe it's real. We were fatigued, by comparison she and her son were both bedridden for days and she was still going "it's not Covid, it's just the lurgy, I haven't had a bug for a while so I was about due one."
Should've had your $%^&ing Lurgy Vaccine then you dopy mare.
We have a thing called vital interest...
I’ve no idea how representative she is but the one who almost certainly infected us doesn’t believe it’s real.
It's batshit crazy - like the woman in that Tweet I linked to, convinced that she knew better than the doctors about her mate Dave, "thinks" it was pneumonia and rails against the NHS because they wouldn't supply him oxygen. She killed him, her and her kind, as surely as if they put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger.
I don’t know about Covid but threads like this are seriously bad for my blood pressure! 😡
She killed him, her and her kind, as surely as if they put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger.
100% she did
I have a fair amount of sympathy for the people that get sucked into this. I’m going to go out on a limb and say if you are in hospital with covid and the doctors are telling you to ‘take the drugs or you’ll die’, and you still choose to listen to the advice of a someone with zero medical knowledge off the internet, you probably aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed
In most other walks of life, If i coerced someone similarly vulnerable to do something evidently detrimental to their own health, there would Be consequences. These xxxxers do it with impunity however. It’s disgusting.
The anti Vax brigade have never seemed to come up with an alternative to stop the pandemic with the minimum number of deaths.
I'm not an anti vaxxer (but I am adamant it should be a free choice) but this argument, of minimising covid deaths, is where the problems start. Sure the over 75s and those with severe co-morbidity factors are hugely at risk and it's right that society take some collective action to reduce that risk. But the idea that we have to minismise the number of deaths from covid is deeply problematic. How many would you be comfortable with; what is a reasonable minimum?
Life is the biggest co-morbidity factor period and tragic as it is that people die, it is rather innevitable and happens 600,000 times a year in the UK alone from a whole host of things including flu and at all ages. Only the novel nature of the virus and your own persional tendency to feel neurotic and anxious about risk are differentiating factors in the overal attitude we see in response to this situation.
I don't know anyone who died from Covid, which of course is not to say that a good many people did (75% of them were over 75 years old btw and 95% were over 60, so age is overwhelmingly the biggest factor in terms of the risk) but I do know five people under the age of 50 who died from cancer in the last five years (all leaving behind very young families) and I know a great many poeople who died from dementia who were older, my father included.
Risk is an entirely personally perceived construct and my comfort with it will be different to everyone else's; in this debate that different perception of risk (a factor of your neuroticism) is the only realy variable you should be discussing.
but I do know five people under the age of 50 who died from cancer in the last five years
Tragic though that is, if the hospitals continue to be rammed full of sickly unvaccinated covid patients, whom if vaccinated wouldn’t be there, it’s only going to mean more people die needlessly of other diseases
Risk is an entirely personally perceived construct and my comfort with it will be different to everyone else’s; in this debate that different perception of risk (a factor of your neuroticism) is the only realy variable you should be discussing.
A valid point - we can't protect all life indefinitely - though this issue more is around how you feel about the risk of passing it on to someone else vulnerable, which doesn't exist with cancer or dementia. Or inciting people with deliberately false information to take that risk, knowingly or otherwise.
and if the figures last year were correct and those dying of Covid still had 10 years life left, on average, working, spending, paying taxes, what is the economic cost to their deaths
in this debate that different perception of risk (a factor of your neuroticism) is the only realy variable you should be discussing
Well, my perception is the risk to me personally of dying from this virus was always as close to zero that I have entirely ignored it from day one. And the statistics since back that up. What you are talking about, for most of us, is how we "perceive" the risk to others. And a lot of that comes from how we weigh up the evidence and advice out there, and importantly, what sources we trust and who we listen to.
age is overwhelmingly the biggest factor in terms of the risk
And that applies to most things the NHS is dealing with, every day, every year. When it comes to the hard end of healthcare, it's nearly always the older generation we are talking about helping and saving.
@Kelvin / @Cougar
"Yes, the unvaccinated are a lot of the people at risk, but they aren’t all “anti-vaxxers”, many can’t be vaccinated"
"You don’t know of anyone who is immunocompromised, would dearly love the vaccination but cannot have it?"
There are not a lot of people who physically *cannot* take the vaccine in the UK. The only group not recommended is people with known allergies to the The amount of people with primary immunocompromisation is very small - but there are people who are on immunosuppressents (and I do personally know some of them) who will remain at slightly higher risk - even post vaccination.
Now the bit you're not going to like:
These people aren't just immunocompromised with covid. They're immunocompromised for *every* disease. It's a shit hand that life has dealt them, indeed.
However, you cannot continue to lock down the entire country because of a very small percentage (and it is indeed a very small percentage) of people who unfortunately have lifelong issues.
The best outcome for them was always going to be 90% vaccination rates for eligable people (and we've got it) and then they get to continue on their daily lives not just being careful about covid - but being careful about every disease they have for their lives.
We will always be able to point at some people and go "what about them"?? But we've locked down on and off for two years now, we've vaccinated huge swathes of our society - and need to focus on doing the rest for the rest of the planet.
There's no moral justification for keeping holding back the lives of the vast majority of people any more - when there's little way of improving our situation without doing real harm. And by real harm I mean causing people to lose their job because you're forcing them to act in the way you want them to - removing their bodily autonomy and harming the people who depend on them.
There's no perfect solution. But we're at the point we're now at. And that's the best we could realistically hope for tbh.
No, you’re an apologist. You’re doggedly making excuses for people being wilfully obtuse and presenting the same baseless arguments over and over.
You (ironically) said something in capitals a couple of pages back about people being scared. So, sure, they’re scared, but it’s a fear born from ignorance. So do we try to reassure them or do we shrug and go “sure, freedom of choice”?
Yet again youre making up the narrative.
I say take the vaccine, I urge everyone to take the vaccine, but My standpoint is about freedom of choice, and not just in this current issue, but with everything that comes after.
You should be on a Simon Pegg movie
FOR THE GREATER GOOD.FOR THE GREATER GOOD FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Same as directed at Tom Howard.
No I say take the vaccine, I urge them to take the vaccine, as it increases the chance of life.
But if you dont, then that should be your choice
6 hours was how long a cyclist with a broken leg had to wait in Bristol after he was knocked off his bike not a miles from the Hospital.
Well how selfish is that individual ?, indulging in a dangerous sport, knowing full well the hospitals are packed. Yet carries on blindly. And no its not like going for a spin around the streets on your bicycle, its indulging a dangerous hobby, one that claims many victims each year. The board is full of sympathetic words
Yes it is his choice.his RIGHT to take the risk and possible cause issues for himself and the hospitals and the paramedics trying to reach him.
"Actions has consequences" Remember those words ?
It used to be the good of the many outweighed the good of the few, but here on this thread, and in the question of long held and fought for freedoms of choice, but be forsaken with the good of the few outweighs the good of the meany, and not just for today and this pandemic, but for all time.
Remember your standpoint. So no backsliding later on.
Pleas4e someone update the Meat Load thread. Apparently now he's a selfish monster.
Since when has linking something with fascism ever meant that it should be encouraged?
Your message has been that the government encouraging folk to get the vaccine, as you have, is tyranny. You don't think that, by association, someone might be put off?
The first legal challenge for compulsory covid vaccines at work has been concluded.
https://twitter.com/healthreglawyer/status/1485682222313222146?s=21
However, you cannot continue to lock down the entire country because of a very small percentage (and it is indeed a very small percentage) of people who unfortunately have lifelong issues.
Which country are you talking about? The one I live in has very few restrictions right now, never mind a "lock down"... thanks to people getting vaccinated (and wearing masks in indoor public places and a few other measures... and, yes, the characteristics of the latest successful variant). As for the "people who unfortunately have lifelong issues", they are, in my opinion, worth weighing up when someone is considering the benefits of vaccination, and the increase in risk "to others" that they are choosing if deciding vaccination "isn't for them".
Interesting Drac. I am suprised but there you go
@dyna-ti I have sympathy for your position but it might be time to wipe your brow and have a bit of a sit-down.
Ultimately, personal freedoms have limits, don't they? Surely they have to?
There’s no moral justification for keeping holding back the lives of the vast majority of people any more – when there’s little way of improving our situation without doing real harm. And by real harm I mean causing people to lose their job because you’re forcing them to act in the way you want them to – removing their bodily autonomy and harming the people who depend on them.
By "holding back lives", do you mean showing proof of vaccination to get into large, busy venues? Because I've gotta say, I can live with that, I don't see it as a particular imposition.
By "removing bodily autonomy", do you mean asking them to take a harmless vaccination for the protection of the vulnerable people they work with or risk losing their jobs? Because that is still a choice they are free to make.
dyna ti - its all about what is proportional here. Its not a black and white either / or issue. there are many steps along the way to this
To require a vaccine to go into some public areas and private events to me is proportionate. to make it a post employment condition of employment I believe is not - but note Dracs post above
~What you are effectively say is my fit and active father who is 87 and have long standing lung conditions can never go to a concert ( a huge hobby of his - he was a regular at classical concerts prior to covid) nor can he go to a rugby match again - something he and I did regularly so that antivaxers can go.
if my father catches covid he will die. Are you seriously telling me his death or having to isolate for the rest of his life is a price worth paying so anti vaxers can do as they wish?
'Encouraging'
Yes, 'encouraging' through force. Through mandate. You will do this, and your personal feelings are secondary.And if you dont do it.... measures will be taken.
Others have been 'encouraged' throughout history.
@PJ
My condolences to your father. And I also have copd, so me getting covid might not end so well. And thank god he visus have mutated to a less harmful strain. But to what end must we forgo freedom.
My standpoint is about freedom of choice, and not just in this current issue, but with everything that comes after.
This again... People have freedom to choose whether to get vaccinated or not. People do not have freedom from the consequences of their decisions, in this as in every single decision every single one of us ever makes.
How do you struggle with this?
‘Encouraging’
Yes, ‘encouraging’ through force. Through mandate. You will do this, and your personal feelings are secondary.And if you dont do it…. measures will be taken.
FFS. You really won't get it will you?
Who is being forced?
Yes, ‘encouraging’ through force. Through mandate. You will do this, and your personal feelings are secondary.And if you dont do it…. measures will be taken.
Correction - "you can do this, you can choose not to, but the consequences are this. Take your pick".
I think the OP has done remarkably well.
7 pages in & he/she/it hasn’t been seen since page 1.
Carry on as (though you were) normal.
Interesting Drac. I am suprised but there you go
It was also before it was made a legal requirement by the government. The claimant didn’t help there case though by lying during her dismissal hearing with her employer. Their union rep must have wanted the world to swallow them up.
People have freedom to choose whether to get vaccinated or not.
So why then are 80,000+ choosing not to be vaccinated in the NHS. Why are they risking being sacked. BEING SACKED. Apparently you're struggling with this as being a punishment.
The US Supreme Court called it a significant encroachment" on the lives of millions of workers
Again, and ok this isnt the US, but the supreme court of a country that holds freedom as dear to them as it can possibly get, according you are 'struggling with the concept'
Who is being forced?
Force by consequence. I mean ive repeated that and the reasoning behind it tom several times. so try to get it, if you disagree then fine, but do stop bleating on.
In fact the French has a special term for this. I took a look but couldnt find it. its 'something something... by measure' but i dont speak French.
Now theres a people who hold Freedom dear to them. But are at odds with several people here.
Why are they risking being sacked. BEING SACKED.
Surely it's so they don't give COVID to the patients??
So why then are 80,000+ choosing not to be vaccinated in the NHS. Why are they risking being sacked. BEING SACKED. Apparently you’re struggling with this as being a punishment.
Other jobs are available to suit their life choices.
Interesting Drac. I am surprised but there you go
If this forum had an edit button that lasted more than 15 mins you might be advised to revise someone of the nuance of what you typed in the previous thread with the addition of a good liberal scattering of IMOs. You were mighty definitive at times in some of your previous assertions about the legality.
@kelvin:"As for the “people who unfortunately have lifelong issues”, they are, in my opinion, worth weighing up when someone is considering the benefits of vaccination, and the increase in risk “to others” that they are choosing if deciding vaccination “isn’t for them”"
Totally agree. And you have to include in that calculation the removal of bodily autonomy. Permanently.
If you can justify that for this, you can justify it for a lot of things. And that's a world I really don't want to live in.
Fully vaccinated. Obeyed all the rules. Thinks anti-vaxxers are idiots on this point (and has reams of publicly available clear as day evidence to prove it). However, MUST preserve these idiot's right to freely choose.
And again...
Mandatory vaccination for certain jobs is not new. It's been a condition of employment in several industries for years.
Hepatitis and tetanus in refuse workers.
Yellow fever, malaria, etc for those in the travel industry in certain parts of the world.
No jab, no job.
Frankly I'm amazed that front line health workers are not already required to have hepatitis and tetanus jabs at least.
So why then are 80,000+ choosing not to be vaccinated in the NHS. Why are they risking being sacked. BEING SACKED. Apparently you’re struggling with this as being a punishment.
**** knows, I'm no more anti-vax than you are. It's not a punishment, it's a consequence of a decision they're making - they can seek jobs pretty much anywhere else they want, or they can get a harmless vaccination. It's freedom of choice, you see.
@tjagain - your post about your dad. I sympathise - I really do.
However if that's the case then anti-vaxxers aren't really a problem for him - the normal, vaccinated population is. We can - me and you - can, and will, spread covid. It's going to go around the world and then go around the world again. Forever.
If he's been vaccinated, that's the best he can hope for.
Your desire for more, I'm sad to say, is unrealistic. Even if we lassooed every anti-vaxxer on the planet and injected them directly in their eyes with massive dose of pfizer, on a weekly basis, and then punched them in their balls for good measure - your dad will still experience the same level of risk.
Everyones getting it. More than once. That's our new reality.
So why then are 80,000+ choosing not to be vaccinated in the NHS.
Well given the figures aren’t clear lets look at possibilities.
They’re exempt, they’re religion, they’re non patient contact, they’re due to retire or they’re just choosing not to. How many fits into each category is unclear.
However, what we do know is that’s well over 1.3m have chosen to have it.
So why then are 80,000+ choosing not to be vaccinated in the NHS. Why are they risking being sacked. BEING SACKED. Apparently you’re struggling with this as being a punishment.
Numbers aside, why are you struggling to see this as a consequence of their choices?
Weren't you deriding someone for using ALL CAPS in an argument earlier, possibly in this very thread? Or was that someone else?
your dad will still experience the same level of risk.
this shows a basic lack of understanding. Vaccinated people are less likely to get it, likely to have lower viral load if they do get thus are less infectious so anti vaxxers do increase the risk. this is basic science
Deriding someone Cougar. Who exactly ?. perhaps im(or whomever) is using it to emphasis a point.
No personal attacks here, at lease not from my end.
And If I have, I apologize, certainly not my intention to attack someone for their choice.
this shows a basic lack of understanding.
It will lessen your chances of catching it yes, and it will help considerably in negating the seriousness of the infection, but you can still catch it and you can still pass it on.
Again yes it is less likely. But the danger is still there. Those factors need to be included in talking about this part of the subject and not be so readily dismissed.
@tjagain:
"this shows a basic lack of understanding. Vaccinated people are less likely to get it, likely to have lower viral load if they do get thus are less infectious so anti vaxxers do increase the risk. this is basic science"
The risk isn't material. Your dad is going to get it anyway - likely from a fully vaccinated person.
An anti-vaxxer may give it to your dad. But at some point a vaccinated person will. There's no avoiding it. If you forcibly give anti-vaxxers the jab, your dad's still going to get it.
If you forcibly give anti-vaxxers the jab
No one is saying you should do this, especially not TJ.
your dad’s still going to get it
Likely, but not inevitable. Made slightly more likely by those not getting vaccinated, and even more likely by those persuading others to make the same choice.
to make it a post employment condition of employment I believe is not
Remember the 1974 act? It starts with the word Health, employers have to manage and minimise the risk to other employee's health. Wholly proportionate, their gaff, their rules like discussions here.
@kelvin - it was used to illustrate the point.
Even if everyone on the planet is given the vaccine, his dad's still going to get it.
The coercion being applied to some people who haven't been jabbed is NOT justified. For lots of reasons (which have already been covered) - not the least of which is: it's still going to circulate.
A world with covid is our new reality. We're not going to abolish it. We're all going to get it multiple times during our lives. Just like we do colds, flu, stomach bugs etc.
As I understand it if you receive a lower does when you are infected, then you are less ill. Is that right? So if someone meets TJ's dad (or mine) and is vaccinated they have a lesser chance of passing it on, and he has a greater chance of not being seriously ill?
But in any case chevychase, considering that you too will eventually die of something, why bother with any precautions and I'll just kill you now, that ok?
Sandwhich - needs to be proportionate. also in the act IIRC
Also the loss of so many staff will cause issues of short staffing.
Anyway - that particular bit of debate has been done to death. I have my view, others differ
No one is saying you should do this, especially not TJ.
correct - but the need to be vaccinated to enter such things as concert halls and football grounds and nightclubs seems proportionate to me. Its one group or the other than gets excluded. allow in anti vaxers you exclude the vulnerable.
his dad’s still going to get it
Probably, but not definitely. Not everyone will get this virus. And not everyone will get all variants of it. Not everyone will get a large exposure to every variant. The unvaccinated are increasing the risk to him.
your dad’s still going to get it.
I don’t think you can say that. I’m assuming his dad won’t be in the pub every weekend, he won’t be sitting in the office with coworkers. Covid will be there in the background but it won’t be as prevalent as it is now.
Of course every time tj’s dad goes to a concert there will be a risk, but vaccination reduces that risk, and the more people that are vaccinated the safer he’ll be
Sorry @Kelvin. Very soon everyone will have had it. And it's going to be circulating on planet earth forever.
And undoubtedly the unvaccinated are increasing the risk but not materially. And that non-material uplift in risk has to be balanced against the dangers of coercive vaccination - not just around covid, but for all the other things that become justifiable because of it - some of which YOU might not like.
For the un-vaccinated infection will be their pathway to immunity. A lot more of them are going to die than those who are vaccinated, but then that's their free (really stupid) choice right there.
But coercing these idiots isn't a solution to anything.
Very soon everyone will have had it.
Not true.
And it’s going to be circulating on planet earth forever.
No one is alive forever. There are many many millions of people in this country who will not get this virus before something else gets them. There are billions of people in the world who will never get any particular variant.
@tpbiker - yes. Yes I can say that. And once the un-vaccinated have had it - they're effectively vaccinated.
But I won't bother with the stats or expert opinion (that supports this view) - I'll instead regail you with anecdotal evidence 🙂
Right now I live in an isolated farm in Snowdonia. No neighbours. Neither myself nor my partner have been into an office in two years. We don't go to the pub much and I can get out on my bike and not see anyone for ages, let alone come near them. We get nearly all our shopping delivered. It's bliss. Me, the o/h and the cat that rocked up and decided he owned us.
She tested positive just after xmas. We'd been to my sisters for xmas (all of them negative, continued to test negative - so we didn't get it there). The only other place was she went into the local co-op to get some milk, once. Masked up. Uses hand gel religiously. We'd both been vaccinated and boosted a few weeks before.
The ONLY place she'd been where she could have picked it up in the timeframe was the co-op. She walked in, mask on, picked up milk, went to the self check-out and left. Back in the car. Home.
It's super transmissable. We're all going to get it multiple times. If you've had the vaccine, as I keep on asserting, there's nothing else meaningful that can be done.
I'd love the world to be different. But it isn't. So give up on trying to kick anti-vaxxers. It's not worth it.
As I understand it if you receive a lower does when you are infected, then you are less ill. Is that right? So if someone meets TJ’s dad (or mine) and is vaccinated they have a lesser chance of passing it on, and he has a greater chance of not being seriously ill?
As I understand it, the vaccine (s) reduce your chance of becoming infected and the infection clears faster but it doesn't reduce actual transmission if someone has it.
Obviously if you stop someone catching it in the first place, that's great.
I have been quite lucky with all around me catching it and never testing positive or getting ill. Is it me? The vaccine? I don't know for sure but I'd go with vaccine.
"There are many many millions of people in this country who will not get this virus before something else gets them. There are billions of people in the world who will never get any particular variant."
Sorry @Kelvin. You're living a fantasy.
Sadly 🙁
And once the un-vaccinated have had it – they’re effectively vaccinated.
Again, not true. They would be less likely to spread the virus in future if they were also vaccinated.
For the un-vaccinated infection will be their pathway to immunity. A lot more of them are going to die than those who are vaccinated, but then that’s their free (really stupid) choice right there.
The problem there is that the NHS does not have unlimited resources, so if hospitals uneccessarily fill with highly contagious anti-vaxers, that has a knock-on effect to their ability to treat others, vaccinated or not.
So give up on trying to kick anti-vaxxers. It’s not worth it.
No chance! 🙂
"Rather than laying plans to return to the ‘normal’ life we knew before the pandemic, 2022 is the year the world must come to terms with the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is here to stay."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00057-y
@Pondo: "The problem there is that the NHS does not have unlimited resources, so if hospitals uneccessarily fill with highly contagious anti-vaxers, that has a knock-on effect to their ability to treat others, vaccinated or not. "
We're already over that hump. Peak has been hit and passed - and yes, absolutely if the fekking anti-vaxxers had not been such ****s the NHS would have had a much easier time of it - but omicron has been so infectious that we're on our way down the other side and the NHS is recovering.
If you really want to kick anti-vaxxers think of this fact and feel warm inside: The unvaccinated are more than 30 times more likely to die of covid. So lots of them have been having a really horrible time of it.
If that's what makes you feel warm 🙁
The ONLY place she’d been where she could have picked it up in the timeframe was the co-op.
Or from a none symptomatic family member who’s LFT didn’t show up they were a carrier.
I’d go with that over popping into the co-op.
If the vaccine doesn't provide sterile immunity, which it doesn't, making it the basis of anything like what has been proposed is ipso facto wrong.
You might not like that to be the case, but it is.
I'm really sorry, because i really believe that YOU should take this vaccine - I have, THREE TIMES - but the way it works makes it impossible to force it on the unsure with any moral authority.
If, as seems likely, annual/bi-annual boosters become part of our armoury, how are we to keep up with the vaccine status of one of the largest workforces in the world? Can you only work on the Ward in 2025 if you've had your 5th booster? Will proof of recent infection and your 6th be enough in 2026?
I don't really understand why these people are being refuseniks, but i'm afraid i have to side with them on this one.
We’re already over that hump. Peak has been hit and passed – and yes, absolutely if the fekking anti-vaxxers had not been such **** the NHS would have had a much easier time of it – but omicron has been so infectious that we’re on our way down the other side and the NHS is recovering.
We might have just passed the current peak, but it seems flippant at this point to say "the NHS is recovering" - haven't we, like, just removed a shit-ton of restrictions? A somewhat different environment, I know, but Mrs Pondo's school is sinking under staff and pupil covid absence - they can't get cover teachers, so some year groups are watching films in the hall rather than doing lessons. That doesn't sound like a recovery phase to me.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
If the vaccine doesn’t provide sterile immunity, which it doesn’t, making it the basis of anything like what has been proposed is ipso facto wrong.
You might not like that to be the case, but it is.
Well, how scientific. **** the vulnerable and elderly, right? And let's not forget that it does kill the young and healthy, and that long covid is horrific - but since it's ipso facto wrong, that's just hard cheese on them, gotcha. Glad that's all been cleared up! 🙂
Unless you're some sort of libertarian loony, requiring some workers to have a vaccine is not right or wrong in and of itself. It is right or wrong (or necessary or whatever) depending on the reasons behind it and the benefits it will bring. I seem to be a sort of accidental consequentialist in this because the consequences of having health care staff vaccinated or not are important.
I'm firmly in the 'just get the ******* vaccine' camp and have limited sympathy for those who won't. However, due to the nature of the virus, the effectiveness of the vaccines and the potential effects of further staff shortages I'm not convinced this is a fight worth fighting.
but the way it works makes it impossible to force it on the unsure with any moral authority.
You mean "coerced" not "forced" I've not seen any evidence of anyone forcibly made to take it. Possibly a scenario where someone is so debilitated by illness a decision is taken for them.
I've seen "force" used quite a lot to describe something that's a "choice". Is that a purposeful part of an agenda to inject false language into a debate?
The problem there is that the NHS does not have unlimited resources, so if hospitals uneccessarily fill with highly contagious anti-vaxers, that has a knock-on effect to their ability to treat others, vaccinated or not.
5 or 6 million people are on an NHS waiting list. If you think the NHS has ANY capacity to give up beds to people who choose to not take a simple step to prevent them catching Covid and taking an easily avoidable bedspace from someone else, you need to have a look at what reality you are inhabiting.
If, as seems likely, annual/bi-annual boosters become part of our armoury, how are we to keep up with the vaccine status of one of the largest workforces in the world?
Well maybe they could have some sort of medical record, wait I’m on to something here. Maybe these medical records could also be used for 60m people in the UK too.
Well maybe they could have some sort of medical record, wait I’m on to something here. Maybe these medical records could also be used for 60m people in the UK too.
I'm just dreaming here, but wouldn't it be cool if your medical record could be linked to, I dunno, maybe some kind of portable device so that you could, in seconds, prove your vaccination status wherever you went? Science fantasy, I know, but just imagine! 🙂
Unless you are anti-portable device. I have heard they track everything you do and some greater powers then control you with it.
Steady on guys let’s not get too sci-fi here.
I apologise profusely to anyone I have offended/upset.
This thread to me was a Troll from the start so I haven’t read all of it and was piss taking. Insensitive sorry. I find in dark times dark humor can help.
Mrs Pondo’s school is sinking under staff and pupil covid absence – they can’t get cover teachers
Same here. Where my OH works the covid relief staff are falling to covid. They were sent a supply teacher and two supply TAs yesterday, one of the TAs didn't turn up. They're in this weird parallel universe where seemingly a teacher requires a TA, but a TA is expected to manage a class on their own and that's fine. 🤷♀️🤷♂️
@dyna-ti you clamed:
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed. -
Adolf Hitler, Mein KampfFALSE
I take it you didn’t actually fact-check your sources?
“Those words do not appear in Mein Kampf, nor do they represent Hitler’s beliefs. His idea of taking power was to discredit traditional sources of factuality in favor of a myth of a supposedly innocent nation and its supposedly faultless leader, and to undermine the rule of law by willful violent actions carried out in the name of a race.” - Timothy Snyder, Yale Historian.
In fact, what you posted is the historical opposite of what happened. Once he gained a position of political authority in Germany, Hitler quickly headed down the road of consolidating power by making very large changes in a short period of time.
The words you misuse here are from a 2014 novel. The made-up ‘quote’ became popular as some kind of a ‘boiling frog’ narrative for a misinformation/scare-campaign via users of social media and is (obviously) still being reshared. “As of May 20, 2020, the quote has been shared over 20,940 times on Facebook”
I’d recommend learning about how to avoid resharing misinformation here and here
I believe Lincoln said it best P7.
They’re in this weird parallel universe where seemingly a teacher requires a TA, but a TA is expected to manage a class on their own and that’s fine.
Ha! Mrs Onewheel is a TA, she's spent most of the pandemic, including all the lockdowns, teaching a class or sometimes two, on her own. For minimum wage.
Are TAs and teachers in the same union?