Can't work in a care home

[VVC-Geeza]

Originally Posted by macafee2

mmm it is the law, it must be obeyed? Does that apply to unjust laws? I offer you Alan Turing who was prosecuted for homosexuality. No way would that happen now. Was it a just law at the time?

What do the patients gain by carers being double jabbed?
What benefit does bringing this to law give patients?

macafee2

So are you recommending anarchy?

I don't agree with paying the BBC for a TV license but it's the current law and I will continue to pay until if/when the law is changed.The powers that be have decided that it is a condition of employment that care home staff are vaccinated.I disagree with you about the 'real' motive for speed camera's,never the less I'm stuck with them because they are backed by the law.

[guru]

I cannot see the issue with care workers and NHS staff being required to have the vaccine as a condition of their employment, if fact it seems like common sense. The fact is the vaccine DOES significantly reduce the chance of catching and therefore passing it on and even if you do get it having the anti-bodies in your system will reduce the viral load and again will reduce the window that you're infectious for.

We have some relevant experience here, unfortunately despite testing negative in a PCR before we travelled our 16 year old daughter tested positive on the first day of our holiday to Portugal. We were in a fairly small villa with 2 bedrooms so us isolating from her was not possible however despite spending a week in close contact the vaccine appears to have worked and we didn't get it. Sadly as she's only just turned 16 she hasn't yet had the opportunity to have the vaccine but will do in a few weeks.

The other concern that I keep seeing is that the vaccine has not been tested however again this is rubbish. Fact is thanks to the massive amount of computing power we have now plus the biggest worldwide effort on a single project probably since the war the vaccine has been tested more comprehensively then a lot of other medications out there.

Finally it's interesting that we keep hearing from the very vocal minority who have not had the vaccine however the fact is a majority have had it but just tend to be much quieter. Personally I don't actually know anyone who hasn't had the jab so why shouldn't carers have it?

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by guru

I cannot see the issue with care workers and NHS staff being required to have the vaccine as a condition of their employment, if fact it seems like common sense. The fact is the vaccine DOES significantly reduce the chance of catching and therefore passing it on and even if you do get it having the anti-bodies in your system will reduce the viral load and again will reduce the window that you're infectious for.

We have some relevant experience here, unfortunately despite testing negative in a PCR before we travelled our 16 year old daughter tested positive on the first day of our holiday to Portugal. We were in a fairly small villa with 2 bedrooms so us isolating from her was not possible however despite spending a week in close contact the vaccine appears to have worked and we didn't get it. Sadly as she's only just turned 16 she hasn't yet had the opportunity to have the vaccine but will do in a few weeks.

The other concern that I keep seeing is that the vaccine has not been tested however again this is rubbish. Fact is thanks to the massive amount of computing power we have now plus the biggest worldwide effort on a single project probably since the war the vaccine has been tested more comprehensively then a lot of other medications out there.

Finally it's interesting that we keep hearing from the very vocal minority who have not had the vaccine however the fact is a majority have had it but just tend to be much quieter. Personally I don't actually know anyone who hasn't had the jab so why shouldn't carers have it?

You are asking a question that has already been answered.
Carers, no one (that I can think of) should not be made by law to have the injection because they should have the right to choose what goes into their body.

macafee2

[MSS]

It feel that some posters are missing the key points that the OP has already made a number of times. These being as follows:

1. Can a law that effectively makes people choose between their livelihoods or having something injected into their bodies be considered reasonable or is it in fact a form of coercion?

2. The above is particularly relevant considering that those impacted have been performing the role in question for many years. The country even clapped for them every Thursday for a number of months. The new requirement is therefore a unilateral change to the conditions of their employment. Is the change reasonable?

3. Can it ever be considered reasonable and morally justifiable to remove a person's choice as to what they have injected into their bodies?


To address a few of the points raised by posters:

1. It is not reasonable to ignore laws. This would lead to anarchy. But, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge new regulations in the courts.

2. As far as I am aware it has not been shown that vaccination reduces transmission to any significant degree. One study showed that there were small short-term benefits but these became negligible around 3 months following vaccination.

3. The argument in post #24 about rights vs responsibilities is fundamentally flawed in this context. In my view post #24 is verging on being offensive to intelligent people.

It is worth pointing out again that the OP and many others who are not comfortable with individuals having their choice on whether to have something that alters the natural functioning of their bodies injected into them are in fact fully vaccinated by choice. By definition, they are not amongst the community who are said in post #24 to 'idiotically believe the rubbish spouted on social media'.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by MSS

It feel that some posters are missing the key points that the OP has already made a number of times. These being as follows:

1. Can a law that effectively makes people choose between their livelihoods or having something injected into their bodies be considered reasonable or is it in fact a form of coercion?

2. The above is particularly relevant considering that those impacted have been performing the role in question for many years. The country even clapped for them every Thursday for a number of months. The new requirement is therefore a unilateral change to the conditions of their employment. Is the change reasonable?

3. Can it ever be considered reasonable and morally justifiable to remove a person's choice as to what they have injected into their bodies?


To address a few of the points raised by posters:

1. It is not reasonable to ignore laws. This would lead to anarchy. But, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge new regulations in the courts.

2. As far as I am aware it has not been shown that vaccination reduces transmission to any significant degree. One study showed that there were small short-term benefits but these became negligible around 3 months following vaccination.

3. The argument in post #24 about rights vs responsibilities is fundamentally flawed in this context. In my view post #24 is verging on being offensive to intelligent people.

It is worth pointing out again that the OP and many others who are not comfortable with individuals having their choice on whether to have something that alters the natural functioning of their bodies injected into them are in fact fully vaccinated by choice. By definition, they are not amongst the community who are said in post #24 to 'idiotically believe the rubbish spouted on social media'.

first thank you but second, I am happy for them to have the choice. They should have the choice, they should not be forced by law and they should not loose their jobs. I do think they should be jabbed but I cannot at the moment support doing by law and threat of being unemployed. Next we may hear they cannot get and government support for being unemployed as they have made themselves intentionally unemployed, something I do not support.

macafee2

[Saga Lout]

Originally Posted by guru

I cannot see the issue with care workers and NHS staff being required to have the vaccine as a condition of their employment, if fact it seems like common sense. The fact is the vaccine DOES significantly reduce the chance of catching and therefore passing it on and even if you do get it having the anti-bodies in your system will reduce the viral load and again will reduce the window that you're infectious for.

We have some relevant experience here, unfortunately despite testing negative in a PCR before we travelled our 16 year old daughter tested positive on the first day of our holiday to Portugal. We were in a fairly small villa with 2 bedrooms so us isolating from her was not possible however despite spending a week in close contact the vaccine appears to have worked and we didn't get it. Sadly as she's only just turned 16 she hasn't yet had the opportunity to have the vaccine but will do in a few weeks.

The other concern that I keep seeing is that the vaccine has not been tested however again this is rubbish. Fact is thanks to the massive amount of computing power we have now plus the biggest worldwide effort on a single project probably since the war the vaccine has been tested more comprehensively then a lot of other medications out there.

Finally it's interesting that we keep hearing from the very vocal minority who have not had the vaccine however the fact is a majority have had it but just tend to be much quieter. Personally I don't actually know anyone who hasn't had the jab so why shouldn't carers have it?

Having had the virus, your daughter does not need to take the vaccine now. Your daughter will have a robust immunity to the virus now and to have a vaccine would be pointless and quite possibly dangerous due to immune system overload. At best she'd have a vaccine jab that will wane over a few months whilst her natural immunity stays strong, the vaccine will add nothing to her system that would be long lasting or effective. The question about long term health issues with the vaccines are not answered as yet because time hasn't elapsed to find out, do you want your daughter to now take the jab when she simply doesn't need it, her T cell and B cell immunity will offer best protection. I'm not anti vax, I say get it if you haven't had the virus but there's no point after the virus, the horse has bolted.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza

So are you recommending anarchy?

I don't agree with paying the BBC for a TV license but it's the current law and I will continue to pay until if/when the law is changed.The powers that be have decided that it is a condition of employment that care home staff are vaccinated.I disagree with you about the 'real' motive for speed camera's,never the less I'm stuck with them because they are backed by the law.

Could you answer the questions please?

I do not suggest or recommend anarchy.

macafee2