Can't work in a care home

[bikerdude666]

I'm coming in to this late and may have missed something, but I was under the impression the vaccination stops or lessens the effect of having Covid-19? So vaccinated or not, you can still carry the virus and pass it on. The vaccination protects the person getting the vaccine doesn't it, not those around them?

Currently around 5 people off work where I work, all of them double jabbed, 2 aren't feeling well, 1 is really bad, and 2 are fine, but have tested positive.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by bikerdude666

I'm coming in to this late and may have missed something, but I was under the impression the vaccination stops or lessens the effect of having Covid-19? So vaccinated or not, you can still carry the virus and pass it on. The vaccination protects the person getting the vaccine doesn't it, not those around them?

Currently around 5 people off work where I work, all of them double jabbed, 2 aren't feeling well, 1 is really bad, and 2 are fine, but have tested positive.

Correct.

This is why the sensible and more effective solution would be to require all those needing and expecting care to be vaccinated. I guess this would be politically more explosive!

[wraymond]

It seems acceptable to criticise people who refuse requests to be vaccinated and then have their long-term contracts of employment ignored. Even, maybe, illegal. There should not even be the need for any explanation for a no-thank-you answer, let alone the attempts at marginalisation as a form of ensuring compliance. I thought we had fought wars to remove that possibility.

It all smacks of desperate attempts to rescue tarnished reputations as a result of half-baked decisions by vainglorious leaders. Those contracts would not be trampled at any other time without due debate and a balanced agreement being reached. Regular testing would be accurate, timely, and within contracts. Considering the possibility of transfer from a vaccinated carrier, that would be, most of all, effective.

When hospital beds are used by so many self-inflicted drug addicts and violent thugs, reckless drivers and long term smokers, somehow the critics are silent. Those cases are a result of deliberate and measured anti-social irresponsibility and hatred. The effects, in terms of numbers and length of bed occupancy, are far more damaging than would be the likelihood of transfer of infection from non-vaccinated staff.

More convincing is the theory of mismanagement from the start followed by knee-jerk transfer of £billions haphazardly showered on false dogma in the hope of salvation. This in turn followed by miserable failure.

Not to mention the lobbying of interested parties receiving vast sums via other interested parties. And now the frantic increase in taxes to recover at least some of the national mad debt.

[Torqueofthedevil]

Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT

They suggest it helps to reduce the chances of passing covid on - that is good enough for me. I would want to be cared for by someone who had not been jabbed.

Is there a 'not' missing from the second sentence?

The obvious benefit of care-home workers being vaccinated is that they are less likely to fall ill with Covid, and therefore they will be more likely to be able to work. This seems worthwhile to me! Conversely, running the risk of losing staff from the care sector when it's already short of manpower doesn't make much sense, especially as this will likely put more pressure on the NHS.

There are several precedents for new vaccinations/inoculations to be mandated after an individual has commenced work in a given trade or profession. The obvious one is HM Forces, but I suspect there are others.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Torqueofthedevil

Is there a 'not' missing from the second sentence?

The obvious benefit of care-home workers being vaccinated is that they are less likely to fall ill with Covid, and therefore they will be more likely to be able to work. This seems worthwhile to me! Conversely, running the risk of losing staff from the care sector when it's already short of manpower doesn't make much sense, especially as this will likely put more pressure on the NHS.

There are several precedents for new vaccinations/inoculations to be mandated after an individual has commenced work in a given trade or profession. The obvious one is HM Forces, but I suspect there are others.

Taking the HM Forces. What are the rules upon joining about vaccination? Is vaccination for existing and new viruses compulsory? I dont think it was a condition of employment for Care home workers to be vaccinated for existing and new viruses and this is a massive difference between the two if it is compulsory for the forces to be vaccinated and I think therefore unrealistic to compare the two.

macafee2

[HarryM1BYT]

Originally Posted by Torqueofthedevil

Is there a 'not' missing from the second sentence?

No a 'not' was not intended. The stats clearly show you are less likely to catch covid and less likely to pass it on. Many jobs, quite reasonably have conditions attached to getting the job, either in qualifications or abilities, which if you lack them you cannot take on the job. Accepting the jab is one such reasonable requirement for this particular job.

[torque2me]

Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT

No a 'not' was not intended. The stats clearly show you are less likely to catch covid and less likely to pass it on. Many jobs, quite reasonably have conditions attached to getting the job, either in qualifications or abilities, which if you lack them you cannot take on the job. Accepting the jab is one such reasonable requirement for this particular job.

I'm loosing the will to live over this! ;-) Are you saying there are statistics showing those jabbed x 2 are less likely to catch 19 and therefore be a less likely pool of transmitters?

Who is infecting 39k people every day? Must be those pesky 20% who have not been jabbed (for various reasons).

Kev

[Torqueofthedevil]

Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT

No a 'not' was not intended. The stats clearly show you are less likely to catch covid and less likely to pass it on. Many jobs, quite reasonably have conditions attached to getting the job, either in qualifications or abilities, which if you lack them you cannot take on the job. Accepting the jab is one such reasonable requirement for this particular job.

Sorry, now I'm more confused! Your statement that 'I would want to be cared for by someone who had not been jabbed.' doesn't appear to fit in with the rest of what you have written.

In respect of HM Forces, it is compulsory to have certain jabs on joining (most of which are the ones which the general population are offered but some choose not to have), and others when deploying to certain regions. In the last 12 months, the Covid jab has been added to the latter group. While an individual can refuse a jab, that would make them undeployable, which would likely have a disastrous effect on the individual's career and prospects. A bit like the care-home workers, there is a clear choice - get jabbed, or find alternative employment. Plenty of vacancies right now in the meat processing industry or haulage!

[HarryM1BYT]

Originally Posted by Torqueofthedevil

Sorry, now I'm more confused! Your statement that 'I would want to be cared for by someone who had not been jabbed.' doesn't appear to fit in with the rest of what you have written.!

Sorry, I misread read where you thought the 'not' ought to be. I would not want to be cared for by anyone who had not had the jabs.. There.

[HarryM1BYT]

Originally Posted by torque2me

I'm loosing the will to live over this! ;-) Are you saying there are statistics showing those jabbed x 2 are less likely to catch 19 and therefore be a less likely pool of transmitters?

Who is infecting 39k people every day? Must be those pesky 20% who have not been jabbed (for various reasons).

Kev

What you wrote, makes no sense to me at all. There are certainly stats which suggest the jab works, stats to suggest it avoids infection, stats which suggest that even if you do get it, the effects are less severe and stats which suggest you are less likely to pass it on.



'Who is infecting 39k people every day? Must be those pesky 20% who have not been jabbed (for various reasons).'


What, you mean the 1,320,000 who have not been jabbed are not the cause of the current epidemic, spreading it to 39K per day? Seems reasonable to me, that they are the ones still spreading it. I suppose we are lucky, that the majority will not be catching it, or not suffering the effects quite so badly, because they have been jabbed.