Where have all the anti-vaxxers gone?

[vickster]

Who are you describing as a 'frontline health worker'?

I'd personally say anyone who is employed in an NHS or private hospital, GP surgery, clinic, pharmacy... who could conceivably come into contact with a patient/member of the public? So would also include porters, lab workers, cleaners, maintenance staff, secretaries, reception staff, managers and so on as well as HCPs/ACPs.

That said, I don't get why anyone able to be safely vaccinated against Covid (and any other nasties they may be exposed to) would choose not to be

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I presume people who champion the 'rights' of NHS frontline workers to refuse the vaccine

are also happy for the surgeon that next operates on them to not wear gloves or a mask - because I have been told of MANY MANY health problems caused by mask wearing
and over washing hands can cause rashes and all sorts
so - their choice???

 

[Deleted User]

I presume people who champion the 'rights' of NHS frontline workers to refuse the vaccine

are also happy for the surgeon that next operates on them to not wear gloves or a mask - because I have been told of MANY MANY health problems caused by mask wearing
and over washing hands can cause rashes and all sorts
so - their choice???

My missus was a Theatre Nurse for over 30yrs and her hands were always sore for that very reason.

 

[IanSmithCSE]

Good afternoon,

The BBC is reporting the policy as There will be exemptions for the Covid vaccine requirement for medical reasons,

At first glance this may sound reasonable however I do not understand the logic of a medical exemption in this context.

What is the difference in the risk to the patient from a person who has not been vaccinated because they don't want to be and a person who had not been vaccinated because the vaccine is potentially harmful to them?

If as seems likely the risk to the patient is identical then I don't understand why two people who present an identical risk to patients should be treated differently because of the reason they chose for presenting that identical risk.

Sure it may seem unfair to say to someone with 20 years experience who is unable to safely receive the vaccine sorry but you can no longer due the job but I don't see any other option unless you admit that certain classes of employee are at a higher risk of infecting patients and this is an acceptable risk, undermining the case for the vaccine requirement in the first place.

Once you say that this is the policy then you seem to be creating a policy that is destined to end up in court; When one individual is forced to change role/leave and another individual performing exactly the same action or in this case inactions is not.

Bye

Ian

 

[lazybloke]

There are those who might take issue with your description of that post as 'uncharacteristically negative'.

Who are you describing as a 'frontline health worker'?

I have a lot of time for your posts - usually, but I responded to that one because your comment about Boris didn't explain your position.

"Frontline health worker" was a misquote from a new report I read or heard earlier. I assume it refers to staff who have regular contact with vulnerable patients (like my youngest).

The Beeb used the phrase "Frontline NHS staff"​

The Evening standard said "Frontline NHS workers"​

In principle I support the concept of vaccination being a condition of employment (the precedent of Hep B vaccination has been discussed previously) - although my worry would be the unintended impact of staff leaving an already-stretched profession.

 

[vickster]

As someone was saying on the news (Unison medical lead?), it's crucial to understand why workers in healthcare/care settings aren't being vaccinated - education needed, misinformation, distrust of pharma...or...? And then address those concerns/misunderstandings etc

 

[winjim]

I have a lot of time for your posts - usually, but I responded to that one because your comment about Boris didn't explain your position.

"Frontline health worker" was a misquote from a new report I read or heard earlier. I assume it refers to staff who have regular contact with vulnerable patients (like my youngest).

​

The Beeb used the phrase "Frontline NHS staff"​

The Evening standard said "Frontline NHS workers"​

In principle I support the concept of vaccination being a condition of employment (the precedent of Hep B vaccination has been discussed previously) - although my worry would be the unintended impact of staff leaving an already-stretched profession.

I'll let the Boris comment speak for itself as much as it can, my full opinions are not for consumption on this forum.

Is 'frontline' a misquote? Many seem to use it yet few seem to define it. (With the honourable exception of @vickster above)

It's interesting how the focus has shifted from trying to avoid overwhelming the NHS to seemingly trying to protect the patients. For example, as lab staff we have very little patient contact yet the service could not run without us. So in terms of service continuity we could be considered 'frontline' but in terms of patient protection from infection, maybe not.

I dislike the term as you may be able to tell. It seems to have been coined in order to imply that we are fighting some sort of war, along with the portrayal of NHS staff as 'heroes'. It's disingenuous undefined rhetoric.

 

[Alex321]

Health service workers joined knowing that vaccinations were a requirement. Goal posts are being moved after they have performed their jobs ‘heroically’. If your contract of work was changed without your consent and you were sacked it would be a case for ‘constructive/unfair dismissal’. I can see a few tribunals if push cones to shove.

If the contract is changed in the same way for everybody, and only a few refuse, then they are unlikely to win at the tribunal.

 

[fossyant]

The risk for my MIL in 'care' is contracting the virus from un-vaxxed staff. My wife can't see her mum, even now, without regular testing, and then only in PPE, yet she's vaxxed as well. The longer this continues, the longer my MIL lives in a prison. Get the jab, let's get this virus beaten.

 

[KnittyNorah]

Good afternoon,

The BBC is reporting the policy as There will be exemptions for the Covid vaccine requirement for medical reasons,

At first glance this may sound reasonable however I do not understand the logic of a medical exemption in this context.

What is the difference in the risk to the patient from a person who has not been vaccinated because they don't want to be and a person who had not been vaccinated because the vaccine is potentially harmful to them?

If as seems likely the risk to the patient is identical then I don't understand why two people who present an identical risk to patients should be treated differently because of the reason they chose for presenting that identical risk.

Sure it may seem unfair to say to someone with 20 years experience who is unable to safely receive the vaccine sorry but you can no longer due the job but I don't see any other option unless you admit that certain classes of employee are at a higher risk of infecting patients and this is an acceptable risk, undermining the case for the vaccine requirement in the first place.

Once you say that this is the policy then you seem to be creating a policy that is destined to end up in court; When one individual is forced to change role/leave and another individual performing exactly the same action or in this case inactions is not.

Bye

Ian

I was directly involved in a very similar issue many years ago.

I see no reason why it should end up in court.

If a person already in a permanent position is willing to fulfil new requirements of the job - and this happens all the time in the caring professions - which involve vaccination against a 'new' disease, but is unable to do so for genuine clinical reasons, then it is incumbent on their employer to find them a suitable alternative position and/or manage the employee's condition in such a way that safety for both employee and patient is maintained.

It may well be that an employee who cannot safely be vaccinated against C-19 will have to change their duties significantly; there should be no financial loss to the employee in this case and any further training must be provided FOC at full salary. It may be that onerous testing regimes must be undertaken and if so the employee must be paid for the time they are doing this. Developments in vaccine technologies will no doubt arrive, and persons unable to take the current vaccinations may be able to take a new one in total safety.

However if a person in a permanent position is merely unwilling - rather than clinically unable - to fulfil new requirements, such as being vaccinated, they should be sacked.
Medicine and healthcare depends on new technology, change in practices and upgrading of knowledge. Otherwise women would still be dying of puerperal fever and smallpox controlled by variolation ...

 

[classic33]

What about those health care workers that are agency employed, working in the persons home. There's some that have already been finished because they couldn't manipulate the system in order to get their vaccinations, due to the age range system being used. Not a work related system.

The system covering them isn't as good as that covering health care workers in health care facilities. But they're expected to carry on as normal.

 

[lazybloke]

I'll let the Boris comment speak for itself as much as it can, my full opinions are not for consumption on this forum.

Is 'frontline' a misquote? Many seem to use it yet few seem to define it. (With the honourable exception of @vickster above)

It's interesting how the focus has shifted from trying to avoid overwhelming the NHS to seemingly trying to protect the patients. For example, as lab staff we have very little patient contact yet the service could not run without us. So in terms of service continuity we could be considered 'frontline' but in terms of patient protection from infection, maybe not.

I dislike the term as you may be able to tell. It seems to have been coined in order to imply that we are fighting some sort of war, along with the portrayal of NHS staff as 'heroes'. It's disingenuous undefined rhetoric.

I see no shift in focus.

Demand for NHS services has spiked alarmingly at various points during the pandemic. Covid has been a tragedy for patients, but a collapse of the NHS would have been unimaginably worse. The government was slow to react to those spikes (causing outcomes that should be discussed in NACA), but thankfully a collapse of the NHS was avoided. Arguably this saved many lives.

It's nonsense to suggest there's a been a shift of focus (from protecting the NHS to protecting patients), because the goal was always to protect patients. Protecting the NHS was only ever an intermediate step, not the goal.

 

[lazybloke]

What about those health care workers that are agency employed, working in the persons home. There's some that have already been finished because they couldn't manipulate the system in order to get their vaccinations, due to the age range system being used. Not a work related system.

The system covering them isn't as good as that covering health care workers in health care facilities. But they're expected to carry on as normal.

Is there a specific scenario you're thinking off, because I'm failing to see any reason why a jab is impossible for an adult worker.

The deadline for carers to be jabbed is months away, and they've been able to get jabs for months now.
In fact, many carers were included in JCVI group 2 so would have qualified for jabs very early in the vaccination programme, no manipulation of the system necessary.

If a 12 yr old can get a jab at a GP, pharmacy or vaccination centre, then I can think of no reason why an adult in the care profession can't do the same - and make themself employable again.

 

[classic33]

Is there a specific scenario you're thinking off, because I'm failing to see any reason why a jab is impossible for an adult worker.

The deadline for carers to be jabbed is months away, and they've been able to get jabs for months now.
In fact, many carers were included in JCVI group 2 so would have qualified for jabs very early in the vaccination programme, no manipulation of the system necessary.

If a 12 yr old can get a jab at a GP, pharmacy or vaccination centre, then I can think of no reason why an adult in the care profession can't do the same - and make themself employable again.

Well aware that getting the jab now is very different to March/April this year. But when your job has already gone, what point is there in pointing out the current situation?

 

[KnittyNorah]

Well aware that getting the jab now is very different to March/April this year. But when your job has already gone, what point is there in pointing out the current situation?

But the current situation is that there is massive shortage of the type of home carer workers you describe, so - if they wished - they could easily return to their previous profession. Except they've probably find working in Aldi to pay better and be less stressful in just about every way ...