Off Topic Coronavirus

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
InBiscanWeTrust said:
That makes sense to be fair. Can’t force everyone to have it but if your job puts you in danger of other people should be done.

It’s no different to having to do a DBS check if you’re working with children or going into peoples homes for your job etc.
Click to expand...

I understand why they've done it but it's dangerous ground too. Not everyone can have the vaccine so they need to be careful of discrimination.

Seems at bit daft atm though considering the jab doesn't stop the virus being carried!
 
Zanjinho said:
I understand why they've done it but it's dangerous ground too. Not everyone can have the vaccine so they need to be careful of discrimination.

Seems at bit daft atm though considering the jab doesn't stop the virus being carried!
Click to expand...
yep this idea that the vaccine stops you passing on covid seems to be gaining ground however i assume is does reduce transmission purely as the viral load you are expelling is presumably lower .
 
Solid_Air 2 said:
yep this idea that the vaccine stops you passing on covid seems to be gaining ground however i assume is does reduce transmission purely as the viral load you are expelling is presumably lower .
Click to expand...

put it this way. you don't see much polio and small pox about these days. :)

yes you can spread the thing but its not the same thing either.
 
Zanjinho said:
I understand why they've done it but it's dangerous ground too. Not everyone can have the vaccine so they need to be careful of discrimination.

Seems at bit daft atm though considering the jab doesn't stop the virus being carried!
Click to expand...

Why can’t they have the vaccine?
 
Isn't the target for everyone to have been offered vaccination by June? From what I've read, only a severe allergy to the ingredients in the vaccine make you not a candidate for having it. Other issues around talking blood thinners or arthritis sufferers and their medication, can be got around.

I know each vaccine has different ingredients so maybe an allergy to one just rules out that one and you can have one of the others?? It's only a very small proportion of people who have these severe allergies. If the rest of the population has the vaccine then it cuts out any ethical issues about dividing the nation in two, passport holders and non-holders and also from the health aspect, means the non-holders are protected by the rest having had the vaccine.

If there's no reason not to get a vaccination other than allergy, then everyone will have been vaccinated at pretty much the same time and therefore all will hold a passport. Other than anti-vaxxers what am I missing?
 
johnsonsbaby said:
Isn't the target for everyone to have been offered vaccination by June? From what I've read, only a severe allergy to the ingredients in the vaccine make you not a candidate for having it.

I know each vaccine has different ingredients so maybe an allergy to one just rules out that one and you can have one of the others?? It's only a very small proportion of people who have these severe allergies. If the rest of the population has the vaccine then it cuts out any ethical issues about dividing the nation in two, passport holders and non-holders and also from the health aspect, means the non-holders are protected by the rest having had the vaccine.

If there's no reason not to get a vaccination other than allergy, then everyone will have been vaccinated at pretty much the same time and therefore all will hold a passport. Other than anti-vaxxers what am I missing?
Click to expand...

nothing as far as I can see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnsonsbaby
moreinjuredthanowen said:
So they should.

Its incredibly selfish thing to do around old folks.

the rule should however also be no vaccine no care home visit at this point as well. Its all about getting this thing suppressed.

IMO the usual will go on hols (the minute boris johnson opened his pig mouth Thomas cook has a rush of bookings) going on hoildays this year will inevitably lead to isses and as per it'll be back to school thats blamed not those all off in airplanes on hols with others form across europe.
Click to expand...

The politicians have ruled against the so called vaccine passport on a gut reaction but now after some reflection are having second thoughts. This idea of freedom of choice and human rights could conflict with the public health. And when the two are in conflict public interest and public health win. Quite right. My freedom to go anywhere and do anything I like must be weighed against the risk to others. Politicians initially said a home could not force an employee to get vaccinated and others such as plumbers do the same. Poppycock. We already have surgeons being forced to vaccinate against Hepatitis B. They are banned from certain types of surgery unless they show proof of vaccination or immunity. The flu vaccine was poorly taken up by nursing staff in the early years but several outbreaks and deaths on cancer wards forced the hospitals to insist that if medical and nursing staff are to work on high risk wards they have to be vaccinated. It is a requirement of employment and of professional registration.

There should be no controversy and no hesitation of employers in care homes, and people facing industries like plumbers, taxi drivers etc to insist on vaccination. The public should not be put at risk by staff who refuse to be vaccinated. Exceptions should be rare and considered on their own merits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnsonsbaby
sadiosalah said:
The politicians have ruled against the so called vaccine passport on a gut reaction but now after some reflection are having second thoughts. This idea of freedom of choice and human rights could conflict with the public health. And when the two are in conflict public interest and public health win. Quite right. My freedom to go anywhere and do anything I like must be weighed against the risk to others. Politicians initially said a home could not force an employee to get vaccinated and others such as plumbers do the same. Poppycock. We already have surgeons being forced to vaccinate against Hepatitis B. They are banned from certain types of surgery unless they show proof of vaccination or immunity. The flu vaccine was poorly taken up by nursing staff in the early years but several outbreaks and deaths on cancer wards forced the hospitals to insist that if medical and nursing staff are to work on high risk wards they have to be vaccinated. It is a requirement of employment and of professional registration.

There should be no controversy and no hesitation of employers in care homes, and people facing industries like plumbers, taxi drivers etc to insist on vaccination. The public should not be put at risk by staff who refuse to be vaccinated. Exceptions should be rare and considered on their own merits.
Click to expand...

If you've had the vaccine, aren't you protected regardless of being near those that opt not to have it?
 
It's a slippery slope to force people into vaccination, not all parents have their children vaccinated and this puts others at risk. There has been, however, an ongoing argument about serious lifelong side effects of some of the childhood vaccines. You want people to have freedom of choice but you also have to weigh up protection of the individual against protection of society at large. Enough people choosing not to vaccinate puts everyone at risk. Given the catastrophic effects of this pandemic, it's hard to find an argument in favour of an individual's right not to be vaccinated.
 
Zanjinho said:
If you've had the vaccine, aren't you protected regardless of being near those that opt not to have it?
Click to expand...

not necessarally.

the point is a vaccine is only as good as the immune system it teaches.

If you have for example a kidney transplant. they bascially totally destroy your immune system to get it established. you start all over again so those patients are at massive risk from anything.

If you are 90 you might have a very low immune system who knows.

The point of vaccinaing the staff is they are not walking around fully breathing out virus loaded droplets. If you are a carer its the most basicall thing and better than a mask
 
johnsonsbaby said:
It's a slippery slope to force people into vaccination, not all parents have their children vaccinated and this puts others at risk. There has been, however, an ongoing argument about serious lifelong side effects of some of the childhood vaccines. You want people to have freedom of choice but you also have to weigh up protection of the individual against protection of society at large. Enough people choosing not to vaccinate puts everyone at risk. Given the catastrophic effects of this pandemic, it's hard to find an argument in favour of an individual's right not to be vaccinated.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I really don't like the idea of a Covid passport and forcing people to have it.

I've not had my vaccine yet (because I'm way down the pecking order) but I'll have it once I can.

I don't even take a paracetamol for a head ache, don't like putting anything in my body (bar food obviously <laugh>)
 
johnsonsbaby said:
It's a slippery slope to force people into vaccination, not all parents have their children vaccinated and this puts others at risk. There has been, however, an ongoing argument about serious lifelong side effects of some of the childhood vaccines. You want people to have freedom of choice but you also have to weigh up protection of the individual against protection of society at large. Enough people choosing not to vaccinate puts everyone at risk. Given the catastrophic effects of this pandemic, it's hard to find an argument in favour of an individual's right not to vaccinate.
Click to expand...

when I come to power mate. It'll make china look like a free for all. :)

There is no argument btw about ongoing side effects. there are peoepl with zero evidence making baseless statements and there are scientists gather data and reporting.

anti vaxxers are the ULTIMATE decadence. poelp who never experienced poilo, smallpox, or a whole range of diseases such as measles, mumps etc etc. It is the height of stupidity and frankly they ought to be uninsureable in the US (where most of this starts)

If they couldn't get health care without paying massively themsevles they'd be pretty quick to shut up. if their kids were told no you didn't vaccinate no care i nthis hosptial for you they'd be first in line to scream discrimination.

Its actually very easy find an argument. They are decandent nonsense spouters and the first to be in line when they want someone to solve their problems for them.
 
Zanjinho said:
If you've had the vaccine, aren't you protected regardless of being near those that opt not to have it?
Click to expand...

First the vaccine is not 100% effective. Second, there are patients in nursing homes who have conditions which make them vulnerable to infections and respond poorly to vaccination. This argument is very well rehearsed among those who refuse to be vaccinated. Basically relying on others to get the herd immunity and thereby protected.
Even if my parent is vaccinated why should they be cared for by someone who might pass the virus on to them? But one of the key reasons is that the higher the vaccine uptake in any setting the less likely the risk of an outbreak and therefore of disease transmission. The lower the uptake (from the freedom of choice) the higher the risk of an outbreak. I certainly know which setting I would choose for my parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnsonsbaby
Zanjinho said:
Forcing people is ****. Especially when the vaccine doesn't guarantee you don't catch our carry it!
Click to expand...
So why is a highly trained surgeon not able to operate on a patient if they refuse to get vaccinated? The precedent is already set in case law.

if a nursing home insists on their staff getting vaccinated no one could stop them. That’s fact.
 
sadiosalah said:
First the vaccine is not 100% effective. Second, there are patients in nursing homes who have conditions which make them vulnerable to infections and respond poorly to vaccination. This argument is very well rehearsed among those who refuse to be vaccinated. Basically relying on others to get the herd immunity and thereby protected.
Even if my parent is vaccinated why should they be cared for by someone who might pass the virus on to them? But one of the key reasons is that the higher the vaccine uptake in any setting the less likely the risk of an outbreak and therefore of disease transmission. The lower the uptake (from the freedom of choice) the higher the risk of an outbreak. I certainly know which setting I would choose for my parents.
Click to expand...

Having the vaccination doesn't mean you won't pass it on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back