(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Source: “it’s an absolute mess - everything interesting has been removed”.
Between the Met police and No 10, the report has been destroyed - hands up here anyone who is surprised by this turn of events.
This in itself will drive a few letters to Brady. Best central guess that we are 33-50% of the way to a VOC now, and even if Gray contains zero information that will rise to 50-66%. If it is so obviously gutted that it raises hackles, that might be a touch higher, but my central guessing now is Gray 1.0 doesn't reach the bar.
But that the danger is far from over and I think a VOC is incoming in the next few months.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I’m going to sit back and watch. My money would be on Malc
What, on him being predictably abusive and inarticulate? I have never seen him "win" an argument on here. He just hurls abuse at people because of his inability to ever frame an argument. I now predict an inevitable torrent of abuse in my direction, which I will have the disappointment of not responding to because I will go to lunch. He is the PB pub bore. I know I should avoid him, but someone as rude and obnoxious as he is deserves a regular verbal kicking, even though he keeps coming back for more.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
What about flu? Are people happy to take vaccination that up markedly more than covid?
As a Trust we usually hit the high 90% for staff Flu uptake, we have been number one or two in the entire country in recent years for uptake.
It's not a requirement to have the Flu jab.
Sounds like a great record. What is your trust's preference regarding mandated jabs in this case.
For Covid or Flu?
This Trust got hit pretty hard with Covid, see the CNN pieces they did live from our Trust when we had some of the highest levels of Covid in the country. Speaking to colleagues because of what they have experienced throughout the Pandemic there is very much a mindset of get jabbed so that it hopefully brings us closer to some normality in terms of reducing the pressures on the service. Staff who don't or won't get jabbed do get looked down upon. Very much an us vs them mentality developing. We also lost a numver if staff during the Pandemic and that's very much in the minds of their colleagues.
I believe around 6% of the 11,000 staff we have including permanent and bank staff are not fully vaccinated for Covid. I don't know how high that compares across the rest of the UK with other trusts.
For both Flu and Covid I think it should be mandatory. That's my personal preference and I know I couldn't/wouldn't want to work in a Healthcare Service if I wasn't doing my bit to protect the vulnerable.
Thanks v much. I had actually meant for the flu.
Did your Trust suffer at all from the flu in previous years.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
The approach recommended recently by the House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee is as below. It was completed after hearing submissions from all interested parties and comes down in favour of a de-medicalized gender transition process based on self-ID. Such is already the case in several countries.
It's being ignored by the UK government for reasons of populism not logic or science. So I really don't think it's fair to portray all of the cool calm rationality as being on one side of this debate and all of the jaundice and bullshit on the other.
Self-id is not "supported by science". Biological sex (unchangeable in mammals) is an important characteristic for certain situations and that should be the case in law. They include women's sports, refuges, prisons, changing facilities etc. Allowing access to self-id trans individuals who have not transitioned medically? What could possibly go wrong? (Clue: it already has.) Access to transitioned individuals is reasonable in some cases. In some situations gender-id including self-id should apply but not at the expense of female rights. Another real problem is age of consent to irreversible medical procedures.
From the Graun liveblog: "No 10 hints incriminating material held back from Sue Gray report today may never get published".
That sounds like a really smart strategy for Johnson. Keep brazening it out and refuse to release the report. People are sure to forget. I'm sure Starmer will stop mentioning it after a week or two. It'll all be fine.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
In this instance it is a previously banned poster who repeatedly makes defamatory statements and appears not to care.
Once it is clear they are using the same IP address appropriate action can be taken.
Absolutely not. Boris did exactly what I voted for him to do, he beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit.
If Boris had not become leader of the Tory Party in 2019, there would have been no Conservative majority. Corbyn not Starmer would still be leader of the opposition and Brexit would still not have got through Parliament and we would still be in the EU.
Not sure about the counterfactual evidence for any of that so let's try a different approach.
Starting with the last point first, we would have left without a Deal eventually - unless we carried on with an endless round of letters from Theresa May to the EU asking for more negotiations. The ramifications of leaving without a Deal - that's an argument for another day. Would they have strengthened the hand of those urging us to seek to rejoin? Don't know.
We would be preparing for a General Election in May which would be a re-run of 2017 (Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn). Do we think Theresa May handled the coronavirus well? The lockdowns were swift and strongly enforced and weren't to most people's tastes and the vaccination roll-out continues and it's taken a clear toll on the Prime Minister who looks exhausted.
A lot of Corbyn's thunder has been stolen by Sajid Javid and his furlough payments - in some respects, John McDonnell looks the lesser of the two high-tax high-spending social democratic chancellors.
The Conservatives look divided with the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove arguing for fewer restrictions and for tax cuts in advance of the election.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
It is about not to be gross misconduct if we are to believe the rumour mill about the forthcoming u-turn.
Because brighter people than PB posters have assessed the cost-benefit and determined that the benefit of having people there jabbed or otherwise outweighs the cost of the risk of passing on the virus.
As @jonny83 noted earlier - his Trust has a 90% flu jab take up but it was never mandatory. I presume the Trust didn't sack the unjabbed 10%. We can ask him why that was the case.
Not for care staff.
Unvaccinated care staff were sacked months ago. Care homes continued to operate without them for the last couple of months.
Do you happen to know whether this resulted in any excess mortality for anyone in those care homes.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'd be interested to see studies on the effect of vaccines on the transmissibility of Omicron. Given that they still work to reduce symptomatic infections, it would be surprising if they had no effect on transmissibility.
In that graphic, the 'unvaccinated' includes everyone that did not take the booster, including the double vaccinated?
Unvaccinated means exactly that - no vaccination.
Note that the numbers are rates per 100K. So the chart is showing that boosted people get COVID in the Omicron "era" 5x less than the completely unvaccinated.
Whereas the original Pfizer trials against "classic" COVID gave more like 90% protection against symptomatic infection. I suppose what they call "cases" in that chart are some mixture of symptomatic and unsymptomatic.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
And who should be doing the paying? The NHS?
Yes. Sack the NHS workers who don't believe in medicine and hire new NHS workers.
Recruitment is the NHS's responsibility.
Pay is set by HM Government
Pay is too low to attract sufficient staff
I would have thought supply and demand was basics for PB Tories
UK GPs and hospital doctors are amongst the highest compensated in the world (excluding US), particularly if you include pensions. Other hospital workers, such as nurses etc. have the opportunity to move into hospital management roles which are similarly highly compensated. They are all pretty much "jobs for life", if you excuse the pun. The idea that the NHS pays people poorly is a myth.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
In this instance it is a previously banned poster who repeatedly makes defamatory statements and appears not to care.
Once it is clear they are using the same IP address appropriate action can be taken.
Yeah but it would have been great to see them vs @malcolmg.
Perhaps set up a new website just for that. I'd subscribe.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
It is about not to be gross misconduct if we are to believe the rumour mill about the forthcoming u-turn.
Because brighter people than PB posters have assessed the cost-benefit and determined that the benefit of having people there jabbed or otherwise outweighs the cost of the risk of passing on the virus.
As @jonny83 noted earlier - his Trust has a 90% flu jab take up but it was never mandatory. I presume the Trust didn't sack the unjabbed 10%. We can ask him why that was the case.
Not for care staff.
Unvaccinated care staff were sacked months ago. Care homes continued to operate without them for the last couple of months.
Read the harrowing details of what happens to vulnerable people when they are shown indifference or neglect. Just read them and then be ashamed.
Are you really prepared to risk exposing the vulnerable to this in a post vaccination world? because care homes are short staffed or hire unsuitable people just because they have been vaccinated?
you really have no idea what you are talking about.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
That is their standard remit, they gang up on people and accuse them of transphobia, never have any arguments to support their positions unless it is downright lies.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
I call shenanigans.
Astroturfing. Looks like the admins are on top of it, most of them already banned.
I'm seriously confused. How is it different from other posters here, using pseudonyms, as I do? And en masse on occasion? Or is it that they are doing it at once?
In this instance it is a previously banned poster who repeatedly makes defamatory statements and appears not to care.
Once it is clear they are using the same IP address appropriate action can be taken.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
What gets me is there can be no point of principle here. As I understand it all the Health Trusts require front line workers to have vaccinations for a number of diseases as a condition of employment. Indeed examples of these contract terms and conditions can easily be found online. So there can be no principled objection to this mandate since they have clearly accepted it already for other jabs.
Yes, when they complete their WHA (Work Health assessment) it is paper screened by Occupational Health and from that we determine what vaccinations may be needed for their role. Everyone has to be covered for MMR, Varicella, TB etc. Hep B depending on where you work. EPP if you work with EPP procedures.
What about flu? Are people happy to take vaccination that up markedly more than covid?
As a Trust we usually hit the high 90% for staff Flu uptake, we have been number one or two in the entire country in recent years for uptake.
It's not a requirement to have the Flu jab.
Sounds like a great record. What is your trust's preference regarding mandated jabs in this case.
For Covid or Flu?
This Trust got hit pretty hard with Covid, see the CNN pieces they did live from our Trust when we had some of the highest levels of Covid in the country. Speaking to colleagues because of what they have experienced throughout the Pandemic there is very much a mindset of get jabbed so that it hopefully brings us closer to some normality in terms of reducing the pressures on the service. Staff who don't or won't get jabbed do get looked down upon. Very much an us vs them mentality developing. We also lost a numver if staff during the Pandemic and that's very much in the minds of their colleagues.
I believe around 6% of the 11,000 staff we have including permanent and bank staff are not fully vaccinated for Covid. I don't know how high that compares across the rest of the UK with other trusts.
For both Flu and Covid I think it should be mandatory. That's my personal preference and I know I couldn't/wouldn't want to work in a Healthcare Service if I wasn't doing my bit to protect the vulnerable.
It's about 8% unvaccinated in my Trust, 80% clinical staff.
I have had all 3 and so has Mrs Foxy, so have no objection in principle. What I do object to is the inconsistency of insisting on this while permitting the covid positives to work normally.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
And who should be doing the paying? The NHS?
Yes. Sack the NHS workers who don't believe in medicine and hire new NHS workers.
Recruitment is the NHS's responsibility.
Pay is set by HM Government
Pay is too low to attract sufficient staff
I would have thought supply and demand was basics for PB Tories
UK GPs and hospital doctors are amongst the highest compensated in the world (excluding US), particularly if you include pensions. Other hospital workers, such as nurses etc. have the opportunity to move into hospital management roles which are similarly highly compensated. They are all pretty much "jobs for life", if you excuse the pun. The idea that the NHS pays people poorly is a myth.
GPs choosing to work part time, and it's possible because of the amount they're paid - an option not open to porters, cleaners who need to work all hours to make ends meet in the NHS, and I doubt nurses could get by on part time work....
In terms of optimal pay, GPs are too highly paid to efficiently allocate the resource.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
In the real world, away from your consequence free moral preening, there is nobody to fill these roles. And so the vulnerable are exposed to neglect to salve your all important conscience. Have a look at what you are in fact exposing vulnerable people to from the Cawston example. And then realise that what you are advocating is far from moral.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Vaguely on topic, Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant little place with a decent shopping area and down on the coast itself two or three very decent fish restaurants.
Catching up on the night before, a stunning victory for the incumbent Socialist Government in Portugal confounding the opinion polls during the campaign (one or two of which actually had the opposition Social Democrats in front).
With four seats to be filled, the Socialists have 117 seats with 41.7% of the vote - the first Socialist majority since 2005. The Social Democrats and their allies got 29.3% and 76 seats. Chega won 12 seats on 7.2% of the vote and Liberal Initiative won 8 seats on 5% vote share. The big losers were the Left Bloc who ended up with just 5 seats on 4.5% of the vote and the CDS-PP who lost all their seats (and their leader who quit).
For Alberto Costa, however, a successful strategy and he has a parliamentary majority which looked at the outer edge of expectations even as the polls closed - indeed, the Socialists got a 2% swing from the opposition which got them over the 115 threshold for a majority.
I suspect it may be the end of the road for Social Democrat leader Rui Rio who might not have expected to win outright and to be fair the party did increase its vote share but the fact is they've suffered a net loss of three and with the rise of both Chega and Liberal Initiative and the demise of their former coalition partner, CDS-PP, it's not an easy road ahead for whoever takes on the mantle of LOTO.
Clear win for the Socialists in Portugal then and a majority, even if only of 1.
Poor result for the Social Democrats. Big result for the hard right Chega too, who take third place from the far left Left Bloc
The Socialists have 117 out of 226 seats declared so it's a majority of four at least and twelve at most.
Bad result for the Social Democrats in terms of seats though their vote share up slightly. Rio will I think go after this. Their traditional centre-right coalition partner, CDS-PP, got wiped out.
Also worth mentioning Liberal Initiative finished fourth with eight seats and 5% of the vote.
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff , which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act.The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
6. The apparent abuse by the police of their powers to investigate, threaten or arrest those who raise their concerns, even when the police themselves admit that no crime has been committed. Free expression matters and bullying by state bodies of those who disagree is quite quite wrong. The failure to deal with this - despite legal cases pointing out its unacceptability - is worrying. It is all the more so when much of the bullying seems to be my men against women, thus - ironically - reinforcing some of the underlying concerns. The failure to call out the bullying and abuse of those who speak up is wrong.
7. Misleading statements about what the current law actually says. This does not help any sort of sensible debate and it makes people query the good faith of what is going on.
In many ways some of these issues are similar to the criticisms made of the current Tory government. There is an arrogance, a refusal to be held accountable, a wish to listen only those who agree with you and a worrying dismissal of contrary views which is deeply unhealthy in any polity.
A very interesting discvussion. But do you not mean the Scottish Government rather than SNP specifically, for instance in the first sentence of para 1? Not the same thing legally, financially and even politically given the disagreements within the SNP itself.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
And who should be doing the paying? The NHS?
Yes. Sack the NHS workers who don't believe in medicine and hire new NHS workers.
Recruitment is the NHS's responsibility.
Pay is set by HM Government
Pay is too low to attract sufficient staff
I would have thought supply and demand was basics for PB Tories
UK GPs and hospital doctors are amongst the highest compensated in the world (excluding US), particularly if you include pensions. Other hospital workers, such as nurses etc. have the opportunity to move into hospital management roles which are similarly highly compensated. They are all pretty much "jobs for life", if you excuse the pun. The idea that the NHS pays people poorly is a myth.
You will be telling us next 100,000 vacancies is a myth
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
It is about not to be gross misconduct if we are to believe the rumour mill about the forthcoming u-turn.
Because brighter people than PB posters have assessed the cost-benefit and determined that the benefit of having people there jabbed or otherwise outweighs the cost of the risk of passing on the virus.
As @jonny83 noted earlier - his Trust has a 90% flu jab take up but it was never mandatory. I presume the Trust didn't sack the unjabbed 10%. We can ask him why that was the case.
Not for care staff.
Unvaccinated care staff were sacked months ago. Care homes continued to operate without them for the last couple of months.
Do you happen to know whether this resulted in any excess mortality for anyone in those care homes.
Mostly the short staffed ones have closed to admissions, hence the difficulty discharging patients.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
The people Omicron is most likely most a risk to are... hospital patients. So if anyone ought to be vaccinated it is patient-facing NHS staff.
Beyond that, I have severe doubts about the judgement of a healthcare professional who rejects Covid vaccination. Would I, as a potential patient, want to entrust my health to such judgement?
Patient facing NHS staff can get and pass on covid whether they are vaccinated or not. I don;t think there is any evidence they even do this at different rates.
The argument for vaccination is surely severity of dose, and the argument does not apply to healthy NHS staff under 40.
I'd be interested to see studies on the effect of vaccines on the transmissibility of Omicron. Given that they still work to reduce symptomatic infections, it would be surprising if they had no effect on transmissibility.
In that graphic, the 'unvaccinated' includes everyone that did not take the booster, including the double vaccinated?
Unvaccinated means exactly that - no vaccination.
Note that the numbers are rates per 100K. So the chart is showing that boosted people get COVID in the Omicron "era" 5x less than the completely unvaccinated.
Whereas the original Pfizer trials against "classic" COVID gave more like 90% protection against symptomatic infection. I suppose what they call "cases" in that chart are some mixture of symptomatic and unsymptomatic.
Or we could click through the links to the primary data - published papers
* A COVID-19 case in a fully vaccinated person occurred when SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected in a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after completing the primary series of a COVID-19 vaccine with FDA approval or emergency use authorization. A COVID-19 case in an unvaccinated person occurred when the person did not receive any FDA–authorized COVID-19 vaccine doses before the specimen collection date. Excluded were partially vaccinated persons who had received at least one FDA–authorized or approved vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen with SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected. This analysis represents the combined impact of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) COVID-19 vaccines, which had different clinical efficacies against confirmed infection. A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died, and whose report local health authorities reviewed (e.g., using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources) to make that determination. Per national guidance, this should include persons whose death certificate lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as an underlying cause of death or as a significant condition contributing to death. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Vaguely on topic, Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant little place with a decent shopping area and down on the coast itself two or three very decent fish restaurants.
Catching up on the night before, a stunning victory for the incumbent Socialist Government in Portugal confounding the opinion polls during the campaign (one or two of which actually had the opposition Social Democrats in front).
With four seats to be filled, the Socialists have 117 seats with 41.7% of the vote - the first Socialist majority since 2005. The Social Democrats and their allies got 29.3% and 76 seats. Chega won 12 seats on 7.2% of the vote and Liberal Initiative won 8 seats on 5% vote share. The big losers were the Left Bloc who ended up with just 5 seats on 4.5% of the vote and the CDS-PP who lost all their seats (and their leader who quit).
For Alberto Costa, however, a successful strategy and he has a parliamentary majority which looked at the outer edge of expectations even as the polls closed - indeed, the Socialists got a 2% swing from the opposition which got them over the 115 threshold for a majority.
I suspect it may be the end of the road for Social Democrat leader Rui Rio who might not have expected to win outright and to be fair the party did increase its vote share but the fact is they've suffered a net loss of three and with the rise of both Chega and Liberal Initiative and the demise of their former coalition partner, CDS-PP, it's not an easy road ahead for whoever takes on the mantle of LOTO.
Clear win for the Socialists in Portugal then and a majority, even if only of 1.
Poor result for the Social Democrats. Big result for the hard right Chega too, who take third place from the far left Left Bloc
The Socialists have 117 out of 226 seats declared so it's a majority of four at least and twelve at most.
Bad result for the Social Democrats in terms of seats though their vote share up slightly. Rio will I think go after this. Their traditional centre-right coalition partner, CDS-PP, got wiped out.
Also worth mentioning Liberal Initiative finished fourth with eight seats and 5% of the vote.
Vaguely on topic, Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant little place with a decent shopping area and down on the coast itself two or three very decent fish restaurants.
Catching up on the night before, a stunning victory for the incumbent Socialist Government in Portugal confounding the opinion polls during the campaign (one or two of which actually had the opposition Social Democrats in front).
With four seats to be filled, the Socialists have 117 seats with 41.7% of the vote - the first Socialist majority since 2005. The Social Democrats and their allies got 29.3% and 76 seats. Chega won 12 seats on 7.2% of the vote and Liberal Initiative won 8 seats on 5% vote share. The big losers were the Left Bloc who ended up with just 5 seats on 4.5% of the vote and the CDS-PP who lost all their seats (and their leader who quit).
For Alberto Costa, however, a successful strategy and he has a parliamentary majority which looked at the outer edge of expectations even as the polls closed - indeed, the Socialists got a 2% swing from the opposition which got them over the 115 threshold for a majority.
I suspect it may be the end of the road for Social Democrat leader Rui Rio who might not have expected to win outright and to be fair the party did increase its vote share but the fact is they've suffered a net loss of three and with the rise of both Chega and Liberal Initiative and the demise of their former coalition partner, CDS-PP, it's not an easy road ahead for whoever takes on the mantle of LOTO.
Clear win for the Socialists in Portugal then and a majority, even if only of 1.
Poor result for the Social Democrats. Big result for the hard right Chega too, who take third place from the far left Left Bloc
The Socialists have 117 out of 226 seats declared so it's a majority of four at least and twelve at most.
Bad result for the Social Democrats in terms of seats.
Absolutely not. Boris did exactly what I voted for him to do, he beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit.
If Boris had not become leader of the Tory Party in 2019, there would have been no Conservative majority. Corbyn not Starmer would still be leader of the opposition and Brexit would still not have got through Parliament and we would still be in the EU.
Not sure about the counterfactual evidence for any of that so let's try a different approach.
Starting with the last point first, we would have left without a Deal eventually - unless we carried on with an endless round of letters from Theresa May to the EU asking for more negotiations. The ramifications of leaving without a Deal - that's an argument for another day. Would they have strengthened the hand of those urging us to seek to rejoin? Don't know.
We would be preparing for a General Election in May which would be a re-run of 2017 (Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn). Do we think Theresa May handled the coronavirus well? The lockdowns were swift and strongly enforced and weren't to most people's tastes and the vaccination roll-out continues and it's taken a clear toll on the Prime Minister who looks exhausted.
A lot of Corbyn's thunder has been stolen by Sajid Javid and his furlough payments - in some respects, John McDonnell looks the lesser of the two high-tax high-spending social democratic chancellors.
The Conservatives look divided with the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove arguing for fewer restrictions and for tax cuts in advance of the election.
The article linked above is worth a read and I don’t mind linking to it again:
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Absolutely not. Boris did exactly what I voted for him to do, he beat Corbyn and delivered Brexit.
If Boris had not become leader of the Tory Party in 2019, there would have been no Conservative majority. Corbyn not Starmer would still be leader of the opposition and Brexit would still not have got through Parliament and we would still be in the EU.
Not sure about the counterfactual evidence for any of that so let's try a different approach.
Starting with the last point first, we would have left without a Deal eventually - unless we carried on with an endless round of letters from Theresa May to the EU asking for more negotiations. The ramifications of leaving without a Deal - that's an argument for another day. Would they have strengthened the hand of those urging us to seek to rejoin? Don't know.
We would be preparing for a General Election in May which would be a re-run of 2017 (Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn). Do we think Theresa May handled the coronavirus well? The lockdowns were swift and strongly enforced and weren't to most people's tastes and the vaccination roll-out continues and it's taken a clear toll on the Prime Minister who looks exhausted.
A lot of Corbyn's thunder has been stolen by Sajid Javid and his furlough payments - in some respects, John McDonnell looks the lesser of the two high-tax high-spending social democratic chancellors.
The Conservatives look divided with the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove arguing for fewer restrictions and for tax cuts in advance of the election.
That is exactly the course we would have continued on. The hung parliament of 2017-19 consistently voted against May's Deal and consistently voted against No Deal and the EU continued to agree to extensions.
There would be a general election in May which with the Tories having not delivered Brexit and the UK having not left the EU and May's Deal still in place unchanged would likely have delivered yet another hung parliament. However this time, with the Tory vote split by the Brexit Party, who would now be on over 20%, may even see Corbyn Labour win most seats, with the LDs also significantly up.
McDonnell would of course have increased income tax and inheritance tax and imposed a wealth tax as per the Labour manifesto while spending even more than the Tories. Unions would be at their strongest position since the 1970s. Corbyn would now be cosying up to Putin over Ukraine, anti semitism would still be rife in Labour and we would not end Covid restrictions under a Labour government either. PM May or a PM Hunt would also likely have kept some restrictions unlike Boris, further entrenching shift of Tory voters to Farage's Party
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Why? Public transport isn't the healthcare sector.
Do bus drivers need the Hep B vaccine like NHS care staff do?
Why does it have to be extreme 100% or nothing at all? Keep the healthcare stuff in the healthcare sector, I'm perfectly fine with that. Normal standards for everything else including trains and buses.
If people are so vulnerable they need to live in a bubble they can choose not to board a train, they can't choose not to end up in a care home or A&E.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
And who should be doing the paying? The NHS?
Yes. Sack the NHS workers who don't believe in medicine and hire new NHS workers.
Recruitment is the NHS's responsibility.
Pay is set by HM Government
Pay is too low to attract sufficient staff
I would have thought supply and demand was basics for PB Tories
UK GPs and hospital doctors are amongst the highest compensated in the world (excluding US), particularly if you include pensions. Other hospital workers, such as nurses etc. have the opportunity to move into hospital management roles which are similarly highly compensated. They are all pretty much "jobs for life", if you excuse the pun. The idea that the NHS pays people poorly is a myth.
Many roles — nurses, paramedics, physios — are paid poorly. They can move into management roles, but you still need someone else to do the nursing (etc.) then! And management roles aren’t particularly well paid at more junior levels. I teach NHS managers data analysis and we face a real problem with a brain drain to the private sector.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Hep B is not mandatory for health workers.
It is mandatory for many of them as a term of employment.
No reason Covid vaccine shouldn't be treated the same.
"Mr Hancock has since claimed that although no decision had been made yet, current requirements for doctors to have the Hepatitis B vaccine sets a “clear precedent” for potentially changing the law in this way.
This claim could do with some context. Although some frontline healthcare workers are required to have the Hepatitis B vaccine, this is not law but rather hospital trusts enacting workplace health and safety and occupational health policies."
At the moment, Trust have not had to consider the Health and Safety At Work Etc. Act 1974 position because it is government mandate. So we don't really have an answer.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Why? Public transport isn't the healthcare sector.
Do bus drivers need the Hep B vaccine like NHS care staff do?
Why does it have to be extreme 100% or nothing at all? Keep the healthcare stuff in the healthcare sector, I'm perfectly fine with that. Normal standards for everything else including trains and buses.
If people are so vulnerable they need to live in a bubble they can choose not to board a train, they can't choose not to end up in a care home or A&E.
You would happily (not happily but without guilt) infect someone on the bus who was vulnerable who then subsequently went on to die. My guess is that given the relative numbers of unvaxxed healthcare workers on the one hand, and @BartholomewRobertses jumping onto the bus without a care in the world, on the other, the latter group would be responsible for killing many more people than the former. .
Vaguely on topic, Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant little place with a decent shopping area and down on the coast itself two or three very decent fish restaurants.
Catching up on the night before, a stunning victory for the incumbent Socialist Government in Portugal confounding the opinion polls during the campaign (one or two of which actually had the opposition Social Democrats in front).
With four seats to be filled, the Socialists have 117 seats with 41.7% of the vote - the first Socialist majority since 2005. The Social Democrats and their allies got 29.3% and 76 seats. Chega won 12 seats on 7.2% of the vote and Liberal Initiative won 8 seats on 5% vote share. The big losers were the Left Bloc who ended up with just 5 seats on 4.5% of the vote and the CDS-PP who lost all their seats (and their leader who quit).
For Alberto Costa, however, a successful strategy and he has a parliamentary majority which looked at the outer edge of expectations even as the polls closed - indeed, the Socialists got a 2% swing from the opposition which got them over the 115 threshold for a majority.
I suspect it may be the end of the road for Social Democrat leader Rui Rio who might not have expected to win outright and to be fair the party did increase its vote share but the fact is they've suffered a net loss of three and with the rise of both Chega and Liberal Initiative and the demise of their former coalition partner, CDS-PP, it's not an easy road ahead for whoever takes on the mantle of LOTO.
Clear win for the Socialists in Portugal then and a majority, even if only of 1.
Poor result for the Social Democrats. Big result for the hard right Chega too, who take third place from the far left Left Bloc
The Socialists have 117 out of 226 seats declared so it's a majority of four at least and twelve at most.
Bad result for the Social Democrats in terms of seats though their vote share up slightly. Rio will I think go after this. Their traditional centre-right coalition partner, CDS-PP, got wiped out.
Also worth mentioning Liberal Initiative finished fourth with eight seats and 5% of the vote.
First time too a hard right party in Portugal has got over 5% and come 3rd, Chega is close to Vox
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Why? Public transport isn't the healthcare sector.
Do bus drivers need the Hep B vaccine like NHS care staff do?
Why does it have to be extreme 100% or nothing at all? Keep the healthcare stuff in the healthcare sector, I'm perfectly fine with that. Normal standards for everything else including trains and buses.
If people are so vulnerable they need to live in a bubble they can choose not to board a train, they can't choose not to end up in a care home or A&E.
You would happily (not happily but without guilt) infect someone on the bus who was vulnerable who then subsequently went on to die. My guess is that given the relative numbers of unvaxxed healthcare workers on the one hand, and @BartholomewRobertses jumping onto the bus without a care in the world, on the other, the latter group would be responsible for killing many more people than the former.
That's like saying teachers shouldn't need to have a DBS check to ensure they're not a convicted paedophile, because there could be a convicted paedophile on a bus.
You can have high standards for employees even if the general public still present a risk.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Hep B is not mandatory for health workers.
It is mandatory for many of them as a term of employment.
No reason Covid vaccine shouldn't be treated the same.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Why? Public transport isn't the healthcare sector.
Do bus drivers need the Hep B vaccine like NHS care staff do?
Why does it have to be extreme 100% or nothing at all? Keep the healthcare stuff in the healthcare sector, I'm perfectly fine with that. Normal standards for everything else including trains and buses.
If people are so vulnerable they need to live in a bubble they can choose not to board a train, they can't choose not to end up in a care home or A&E.
You would happily (not happily but without guilt) infect someone on the bus who was vulnerable who then subsequently went on to die. My guess is that given the relative numbers of unvaxxed healthcare workers on the one hand, and @BartholomewRobertses jumping onto the bus without a care in the world, on the other, the latter group would be responsible for killing many more people than the former.
Also, with the BR example, there is no trade offs in terms of lives saved. Care workers save vulnerable people from the killers of suffering, indifference and neglect, whether they are vaxxed or not.
Banning unvaxxed care home workers is presented as a consequence free policy in the same way lockdown once was.
In reality, both can have horrible side effects. Both can be killers in their own right.
New: Downing Street confirms Boris Johnson will sidestep fallout from Sue Gray report by travelling to Ukraine tomorrow for talks with president Zelensky in the face of Russian military build-up on the border https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
Do you think ending isolation for positives is criminal negligent?
I notice a poll at the weekend showed just 18% consider Brexit an important issue, so the vast majority have much more pressing concerns and heading that is the cost of living crisis
Boris is so discredited that his mps need to do the best for themselves and the nation and force a vonc
Rishi endorsing the 1.25% NI increase indicates that he knows more is needed for the NHS and social care, and of course next year it becomes a hypothecated NHS and social tax separate to NI on pay slips
I continue to support Rishi but I am content for any of the leading candidates to become PM asap
It is suggested the cost of living relief package is to be delayed until the march budget but that is unacceptable and dreadful politics
There does seem to a move to the left in countries holding elections and it not really surprising in view of how people throughout the pandemic have been willing to accept the imposition of restrictions on their lives
To me I believe now is the time for a wealth tax, and if the conservatives want to change the narrative they do need to change their attitude to assets and away from taxing income
I do wonder if I am changing my views as it may come as a surprise, but I actually congratulate Drakeford for his review of holiday homes and second homes in Wales with increased taxes and restrictions on planning consents
I know @HYUFD will say I should vote labour/lib dem but if he and the conservative party took notice of my comments, maybe they could win GE24 but right now the tide is ebbing on that proposition
You should vote Labour if you want a wealth tax, better for Conservatives to go into opposition than just become a government putting up more and more tax.
Sometimes in the West there is a shift eg the shift to the right in the 1980s, to the left in the 1990s, to the right in the 2010s and now maybe to the left again with a few exceptions. That is just the electoral cycle and circumstance eg too high tax and union power in the late 1970s, the need to cut deficits in the 2010s and the post pandemic impact now.
I will either abstain or vote lib dem not labour but you miss the point that a wealth tax is inevitable and the conservative party has the opportunity to take the initiative
No it isn't, it is a socialist policy to take people's wealth.
As I said better for the Conservatives to go into opposition than become a socialist party introducing a new wealth tax hitting its core vote.
It would of course go into opposition anyway as many of its core vote would go RefUK and socialists would still vote Labour anyway
Haha. I look forward to the reverse-ferret when a Johnson introduces a stealth wealth tax next year.
Why is a wealth tax 'socialist' when an income tax isn't? Why is it ok to tax the famous 'hard-working families' whilst those sitting on their arses enjoying their silver spoon inherited millions are allowed to avoid taxes?
A wealth tax in the way you envisage it is a dumb idea. What we need are proper transaction taxes that tax every type of transaction fully and which, if you want, specifically target the unearned income above earned. An object - be it a house, a car or a piece of land, has no inherent monetary value until it is transferred to another owner. Taxing stuff in a way that forces people to sell or surrender the property or object just to pay the tax is inherently wrong. It is the ultimate politics of envy.
You and I can go online and see how much a house sold for the last time it was on the market. If we can do it then so can the Government. If you are concerned about the unearned income then you can tax the difference between each time a property changes hands and do so at the normal income tax rates rather than a nominal stamp duty rate. But until that point the property has not realised its monetary potential and so should not be taxed.
Transactional taxes are a far better way to proceed than taxing fixed assets.
For the record I exclude Council Tax from this as I see that as a more immediate payment for local services.
Not really.
Transaction taxes discourage transactions, which in terms of property means discouraging moving home by imposing extra costs on it, which indirectly reduces labour market mobility and hence flexibility.
Taxing the base asset doesn't have this downside, and has the additional upside of discouraging people from holding assets that aren't being put to any worthwhile use. Had we a property tax at a reasonable level, there'd be a lot fewer people holding onto empty unoccupied properties: having to pay a relatively small council tax bill and nothing more is not sufficient disincentive, at least in a market where property has consistently appreciated in value.
It would be sensible to abolish stamp duty altogether and replace it with an annual property tax. To start with one could simply be exchanged for the other, at a broadly equivalent value, which across a lifetime would mean most people aren't worse off.
Of course, it would then make sense to rebalance the rest of the taxation system with a greater share borne by the property tax.
Nope, I fundamentally disagree with this. No one should be taxed on their assets in that way. Tax the increased value at point of sale as capital gains. But the idea that people should be taxed for just owning stuff simply immoral. It is the politics of envy writ large.
I'm not sure that it's the politics of envy. I think I'm generally in favour, but I can see that it does reflect an infringement on the right to private property, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it.
One way in which land value tax, as opposed to a general wealth or property tax, gets around that is to conceptually redefine ownership of land as a partial thing. In a way, all the land should belong to everyone equally, and for people to assert private ownership of land is a bit different to asserting private ownership of a musical instrument, since there is a strictly finite and fixed quantity of land, and so one person's ownership of land necessarily denies that to another person, whereas all other things that are owned can be created.
Therefore, taxation of land value can be justified as asserting the interest that the community retains in the land.
So I think I'd be more comfortable with taxation of land as opposed to ownership of assets more generally.
But the land only has any real value if it has someone's property standing upon it. If you want to tax land at its base, undeveloped value then you are not going to raise much in the way of revenue and you are going to place additional costs on food production and also on land owned for the public good - unless you are considering exempting that. So again in the end you are actually talking about taxing people's private property.
Any chance Johnson's statement at 3:30 will go something like this:
"Having read Sue Gray's interim report into parties at No 10, it is clear that a massive breach of trust has occurred. The buck stops with me, and I am therefore announcing to the House my intention to resign as Prime Minister just as soon as a new Leader of the Conservative Party can be elected..."
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Why? Public transport isn't the healthcare sector.
Do bus drivers need the Hep B vaccine like NHS care staff do?
Why does it have to be extreme 100% or nothing at all? Keep the healthcare stuff in the healthcare sector, I'm perfectly fine with that. Normal standards for everything else including trains and buses.
If people are so vulnerable they need to live in a bubble they can choose not to board a train, they can't choose not to end up in a care home or A&E.
You would happily (not happily but without guilt) infect someone on the bus who was vulnerable who then subsequently went on to die. My guess is that given the relative numbers of unvaxxed healthcare workers on the one hand, and @BartholomewRobertses jumping onto the bus without a care in the world, on the other, the latter group would be responsible for killing many more people than the former.
Also, with the BR example, there is no trade offs in terms of lives saved. Care workers save vulnerable people from the killers of suffering, indifference and neglect, whether they are vaxxed or not.
Banning unvaxxed care home workers is presented as a consequence free policy in the same way lockdown once was.
In reality, both can have horrible side effects. Both can be killers in their own right.
I fully expect @BartholomewRoberts to see the light before too long in much the same way as he did wrt lockdowns. .
The issues with how the SNP is approaching the trans issue raises issues which are far wider than the trans issue itself, which I am not going to go into.
These other issues are these:-
1. Consultation - the SNP's consultation appears to be limited to those organisations which support its policy and which are funded by it (see the next point). It is very determinedly not consulting those with reservations or concerns. It describes those concerns as "not valid" without bothering to hear them let alone engage with them. This is arrogant and leads to bad policy making.
2. Funding and the role of charities - there are quite a few charities which are very significantly or majority funded by government and use those funds for lobbying. It is a very closed circle and the question arises whether they can really be considered charities at all. If the only bodies you consult are those you fund and you only fund those bodies who agree with you you are simply talking to yourself. In a place where one party is electorally dominant this is dangerous. It leads to a lack of scrutiny. There is an issue with regulatory capture by lobby groups which needs closer scrutiny than it has been getting.
3. A lack of research - there is a marked reluctance to look for the actual facts relevant to the debate, something which a government should do before enacting far-reaching legal changes.
4. A failure - or refusal, perhaps - to understand that rights for one group need to be weighed in the balance against rights for other groups and other considerations. This is basic stuff, which is the very essence of law and the ECHR etc. Even the most cursory understanding of human rights law would tell you this and, yet, the Scottish government appears to be adopting an absolutist position which is - or may well be - contrary to the law applicable to Scotland.
5. Which brings me to the position of the EHRC - the body legally charged with overseeing human rights, specifically the rights under the Equality Act. The EHRC has raised concerns which need to be addressed and has, for its pains, received a load of abuse from some of the charities agitating for this change, some of whom have rather arrogantly said that they are cutting ties with it. As if the law - the Equality Act - is something that they can choose to ignore if they don't get their way. We ought all to be concerned, no matter what our views on the underlying issues, when bodies which seem to have such an influence on policy-making throw tantrums like this, behave like bulllies and adopt a "no debate" stance.
The approach recommended recently by the House of Commons Women & Equalities Committee is as below. It was completed after hearing submissions from all interested parties and comes down in favour of a de-medicalized gender transition process based on self-ID. Such is already the case in several countries.
It's being ignored by the UK government for reasons of populism not logic or science. So I really don't think it's fair to portray all of the cool calm rationality as being on one side of this debate and all of the jaundice and bullshit on the other.
The difficulty with that report is that, as has already been pointed out - by people who have actually transitioned - is that it contains some pretty fundamental mistakes about the current process. A report which does not understand the current law or gender recognition process and makes such mistakes is not really one to be relied on. See my point 3.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
So doctor can you answer my question please?
If a nurse or doctor decided that PPE like masks, aprons and gloves etc don't work 100% and go against their beliefs could they continue in their job without wearing any PPE while treating patients?
Or would the NHS determine they're a risk to patients safety and sack them?
Nothing's ever 100% but its reasonable to have standards for people working in the healthcare sector including that they wear the appropriate PPE as required and have the appropriate vaccinations as required.
Anyone who isn't prepared to meet required healthcare standards should be free to work anywhere else.
New: Downing Street confirms Boris Johnson will sidestep fallout from Sue Gray report by travelling to Ukraine tomorrow for talks with president Zelensky in the face of Russian military build-up on the border https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Hep B is not mandatory for health workers.
It is for those doing interventional procedures, but not for all areas of practice.
Any chance Johnson's statement at 3:30 will go something like this:
"Having read Sue Gray's interim report into parties at No 10, it is clear that a massive breach of trust has occurred. The buck stops with me, and I am therefore announcing to the House my intention to resign as Prime Minister just as soon as a new Leader of the Conservative Party can be elected..."
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
Were he not so much of a let it rip merchant it wouldn't be such a strange position for him to hold.
But as you say it is inconsistent and illogical as he presents it.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Hep B is not mandatory for health workers.
It was for Mrs. P as a front-line heath worker until she retired.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Why? Public transport isn't the healthcare sector.
Do bus drivers need the Hep B vaccine like NHS care staff do?
Why does it have to be extreme 100% or nothing at all? Keep the healthcare stuff in the healthcare sector, I'm perfectly fine with that. Normal standards for everything else including trains and buses.
If people are so vulnerable they need to live in a bubble they can choose not to board a train, they can't choose not to end up in a care home or A&E.
You would happily (not happily but without guilt) infect someone on the bus who was vulnerable who then subsequently went on to die. My guess is that given the relative numbers of unvaxxed healthcare workers on the one hand, and @BartholomewRobertses jumping onto the bus without a care in the world, on the other, the latter group would be responsible for killing many more people than the former.
Also, with the BR example, there is no trade offs in terms of lives saved. Care workers save vulnerable people from the killers of suffering, indifference and neglect, whether they are vaxxed or not.
Banning unvaxxed care home workers is presented as a consequence free policy in the same way lockdown once was.
In reality, both can have horrible side effects. Both can be killers in their own right.
I fully expect @BartholomewRoberts to see the light before too long in much the same way as he did wrt lockdowns. .
The care sector vaccine mandate is already in force. Its been in force for months now.
If any care workers, who work with the most vulnerable to this virus, are so lacking in care and empathy for those entrusted to their care that they refused the vaccine then good riddance to them.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
So doctor can you answer my question please?
If a nurse or doctor decided that PPE like masks, aprons and gloves etc don't work 100% and go against their beliefs could they continue in their job without wearing any PPE while treating patients?
Or would the NHS determine they're a risk to patients safety and sack them?
Nothing's ever 100% but its reasonable to have standards for people working in the healthcare sector including that they wear the appropriate PPE as required and have the appropriate vaccinations as required.
Anyone who isn't prepared to meet required healthcare standards should be free to work anywhere else.
Generally we have redeployed them into areas without a need for PapE.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So do you support isolation of covid positives to continue? And continued use of Lateral Flow tests by those working in health an social care?
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
No, no and no.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
A vaccination is an invasive procedure that means putting something inside your body. Very different to putting on a pair of gloves.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
And the Hep B vaccine isn't invasive?
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
Hep B is not mandatory for health workers.
It is for those doing interventional procedures, but not for all areas of practice.
Thanks. Interestingly the govt guidance (still relevant?) says the following:
Healthcare workers for whom hepatitis B vaccination is contra-indicated, who decline vaccination or who are non-responders to vaccine should be restricted from performing EPPs unless shown to be non-infectious (see paragraphs 37-40). Periodic re-testing may need to be considered.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
Were he not so much of a let it rip merchant it wouldn't be such a strange position for him to hold.
But as you say it is inconsistent and illogical as he presents it.
Why is it inconsistent?
As I've said, I've given a consistent line to hold: healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. That's it.
I have no qualms with "letting it rip" in society in general and those who are vulnerable shielding etc if they choose to do so . . . but the healthcare workers are by definition working with the most vulnerable, at the time they are the most vulnerable.
Their job requires they look after the vulnerable who have no choice but to be in their care. Antivaxxers aren't doing so.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
Do you think ending isolation for positives is criminal negligent?
If they can still infect then yes. If you have tested positive then the isolation for a set amount of time or until shown to be negative is the right policy. It should not be dropped.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
So doctor can you answer my question please?
If a nurse or doctor decided that PPE like masks, aprons and gloves etc don't work 100% and go against their beliefs could they continue in their job without wearing any PPE while treating patients?
Or would the NHS determine they're a risk to patients safety and sack them?
Nothing's ever 100% but its reasonable to have standards for people working in the healthcare sector including that they wear the appropriate PPE as required and have the appropriate vaccinations as required.
Anyone who isn't prepared to meet required healthcare standards should be free to work anywhere else.
Generally we have redeployed them into areas without a need for PapE.
So they're not allowed to be deployed on the frontline without the PPE? Their beliefs don't override safety concerns? Even though we know PPE isn't 100% protective or preventative?
How are vaccines any different from that, medically speaking?
New: Downing Street confirms Boris Johnson will sidestep fallout from Sue Gray report by travelling to Ukraine tomorrow for talks with president Zelensky in the face of Russian military build-up on the border https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
Chicken Kiev.
Very good. Please please tabloids pick that one up
New: Downing Street confirms Boris Johnson will sidestep fallout from Sue Gray report by travelling to Ukraine tomorrow for talks with president Zelensky in the face of Russian military build-up on the border https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
Chicken Kiev.
Very good. Please please tabloids pick that one up
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
Do you think ending isolation for positives is criminal negligent?
No.
Health and care workers are working with societies most vulnerable people who have no alternative but to being in the care of those who are being paid to look after them. That isn't the case for the rest of society.
Just as a sex offender could work in some jobs, but others need a DBS that would reject them, proper risk segmentation isn't the same for society as a whole and certain jobs. Healthcare standards should be highest in the healthcare sector.
New: Downing Street confirms Boris Johnson will sidestep fallout from Sue Gray report by travelling to Ukraine tomorrow for talks with president Zelensky in the face of Russian military build-up on the border https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
Now Afghanistan is no longer available, presumably this was as far away as he could get?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I know a lot more about it than you do. You are happy to have vulnerable people die of covid because the staff are too stupid to realise the damage they are doing. Sadly it would be almost impossible to prove an individual connection beyond doubt but if it were I would happily see any selfish unvaccinated care worker in court for manslaughter if one of their patients died. And I still believe if they won't get vaccinated then they have no place in the care system.
At a minimum now, since the Government have sadly seemed to be running scared of this, I would like to see the unvaccinated in the health and care sector warned that they will be barred from promotion and that as new replacement staff become available they will be sacked.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
So doctor can you answer my question please?
If a nurse or doctor decided that PPE like masks, aprons and gloves etc don't work 100% and go against their beliefs could they continue in their job without wearing any PPE while treating patients?
Or would the NHS determine they're a risk to patients safety and sack them?
Nothing's ever 100% but its reasonable to have standards for people working in the healthcare sector including that they wear the appropriate PPE as required and have the appropriate vaccinations as required.
Anyone who isn't prepared to meet required healthcare standards should be free to work anywhere else.
Generally we have redeployed them into areas without a need for PapE.
So they're not allowed to be deployed on the frontline without the PPE? Their beliefs don't override safety concerns? Even though we know PPE isn't 100% protective or preventative?
How are vaccines any different from that, medically speaking?
I would suggest that any individual is risk assessed. If they have antibodies from infection then that should be considered equivalent, for example. It should also take into account the risks to patients of their unit being understaffed. You cannot just close a Maternity unit without a plan to manage the risk.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
So doctor can you answer my question please?
If a nurse or doctor decided that PPE like masks, aprons and gloves etc don't work 100% and go against their beliefs could they continue in their job without wearing any PPE while treating patients?
Or would the NHS determine they're a risk to patients safety and sack them?
Nothing's ever 100% but its reasonable to have standards for people working in the healthcare sector including that they wear the appropriate PPE as required and have the appropriate vaccinations as required.
Anyone who isn't prepared to meet required healthcare standards should be free to work anywhere else.
Generally we have redeployed them into areas without a need for PapE.
So they're not allowed to be deployed on the frontline without the PPE? Their beliefs don't override safety concerns? Even though we know PPE isn't 100% protective or preventative?
How are vaccines any different from that, medically speaking?
I would suggest that any individual is risk assessed. If they have antibodies from infection then that should be considered equivalent, for example. It should also take into account the risks to patients of their unit being understaffed. You cannot just close a Maternity unit without a plan to manage the risk.
What if they don't submit to the test? Lots of they won't.
New: Downing Street confirms Boris Johnson will sidestep fallout from Sue Gray report by travelling to Ukraine tomorrow for talks with president Zelensky in the face of Russian military build-up on the border https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
Chicken Kiev.
Very good. Please please tabloids pick that one up
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also the wishes of the people being cared for.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
New: Downing Street confirms Boris Johnson will sidestep fallout from Sue Gray report by travelling to Ukraine tomorrow for talks with president Zelensky in the face of Russian military build-up on the border https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
Now Afghanistan is no longer available, presumably this was as far away as he could get?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
By your logic have to assess each, say, train passenger for vulnerability and based upon the vulnerability profile either mandate masks or not.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
Yes, it is clearly impossible to divide the world the way that BR suggests. NHS staff have families and children, who may well be positive. Patients and care homes have visitors. Vulnerable people need to travel and shop etc.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
So doctor can you answer my question please?
If a nurse or doctor decided that PPE like masks, aprons and gloves etc don't work 100% and go against their beliefs could they continue in their job without wearing any PPE while treating patients?
Or would the NHS determine they're a risk to patients safety and sack them?
Nothing's ever 100% but its reasonable to have standards for people working in the healthcare sector including that they wear the appropriate PPE as required and have the appropriate vaccinations as required.
Anyone who isn't prepared to meet required healthcare standards should be free to work anywhere else.
Generally we have redeployed them into areas without a need for PapE.
So they're not allowed to be deployed on the frontline without the PPE? Their beliefs don't override safety concerns? Even though we know PPE isn't 100% protective or preventative?
How are vaccines any different from that, medically speaking?
I would suggest that any individual is risk assessed. If they have antibodies from infection then that should be considered equivalent, for example. It should also take into account the risks to patients of their unit being understaffed. You cannot just close a Maternity unit without a plan to manage the risk.
Yes you need a plan, but you need to deal with it not just run away from the issue as too tough to deal with.
If the Maternity unit is currently being staffed by people who don't believe in medicine then that is a problem in its own right.
If quacks who don't believe in medicine want to work in a private sector homeopathy clinic then that's fair enough, don't work for the NHS though.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also the wishes of the people being cared for.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
Any chance Johnson's statement at 3:30 will go something like this:
"Having read Sue Gray's interim report into parties at No 10, it is clear that a massive breach of trust has occurred. The buck stops with me, and I am therefore announcing to the House my intention to resign as Prime Minister just as soon as a new Leader of the Conservative Party can be elected..."
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
That is their standard remit, they gang up on people and accuse them of transphobia, never have any arguments to support their positions unless it is downright lies.
That seems to be the M.O. of the Trans Rights Fanatics. No arguments to support their views just wild accusations and blatant misrepresentations.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also the wishes of the people being cared for.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
Your aunt has an interest in not being treated/cared for by someone who actually has the virus. This is much more germane that whether the person happens to be vaccinated or not.
My feeling is that mandatory vaccination for health workers is driven by emotions not facts. There are plenty of reasonable alternatives such as the following for those staff members not vaccinated:
- Antibody testing for proof of prior infection - Regular PCR testing
Some combination of by the above would mean the patients are at no more risk than from a vaccinated staff member. And frankly, other factors such as whether a staff member has school age children will have a similar impact on infection risk.
The drive feels driven by the moral sense it is only right people in such a job should do all they can to protect others. I understand the sentiment, but the reality is a minority will never say yes and we are better off mitigating the risk in other ways than sacking a bunch of otherwise good workers.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also the wishes of the people being cared for.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
Your aunt has an interest in not being treated/cared for by someone who actually has the virus. This is much more germane that whether the person happens to be vaccinated or not.
Being vaccinated massively reduces your probability of getting COVID. Which massively reduces your ability to be infectious.
I guess they'll have to be ennobled at different times, or it'll look like a job lot.
Which one gets to be a Governor of the BBC?
Lol!
Let me start by saying that the little I know about the Sue Gray investigating partygate suggests she is totally honest, consciencous, and impervious to corrupt outside pressures.
That said, which result would most likely get her a plum job like Governor of the BBC - a whitewash or an assassination?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also the wishes of the people being cared for.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
How does she feel about covid positive people no longer having to isolate?
Perhaps including staff and visitors, or their families.
Incidentally 35% figure is inaccurate, unless she herself is unvaccinated.
What's with the new posters suddenly popping up to argue with Malc?
That is their standard remit, they gang up on people and accuse them of transphobia, never have any arguments to support their positions unless it is downright lies.
That seems to be the M.O. of the Trans Rights Fanatics. No arguments to support their views just wild accusations and blatant misrepresentations.
So you a are saying about 30% of PB are Trans Rights Fanatics?
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also the wishes of the people being cared for.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
How does she feel about covid positive people no longer having to isolate?
Perhaps including staff and visitors, or their families.
Either visitors to her flat can take an LFT and wear an FFP3 or they can fuck off. And keep.... etc etc
My feeling is that mandatory vaccination for health workers is driven by emotions not facts. There are plenty of reasonable alternatives such as the following for those staff members not vaccinated:
- Antibody testing for proof of prior infection - Regular PCR testing
Some combination of by the above would mean the patients are at no more risk than from a vaccinated staff member. And frankly, other factors such as whether a staff member has school age children will have a similar impact on infection risk.
The drive feels driven by the moral sense it is only right people in such a job should do all they can to protect others. I understand the sentiment, but the reality is a minority will never say yes and we are better off mitigating the risk in other ways than sacking a bunch of otherwise good workers.
Sky keep interviewing antivaxx loons who are unvaccinated NHS workers.
We should abolish all the Covid theatre but the more that these NHS workers are speaking the more it seems the NHS would be better off without people who don't believe in medicine.
I am so conflicted. My gut reaction is to tell them to All F Off, but if Omicron is not a risk and we need them, so as not to do more harm, you don't want to do more damage for a principle. In the long term though get them out. It needs to be a requirement that you don't unnecessarily pass on disease to patients.
There isn;t much evidence that vaccination either stops you getting covid or prevents you passing it on at the same rate as an unvaccinated person.
The argument now is vaccination means you get less severely, which is surely why it should apply much more to patients more than those who treat them.
Yes but if they aren't vaccinated now they weren't when we didn't know that and they refused then. They are anti science people working in medicine. I don't generally want to be treated by people with those views.
Note my point that because of what you said I wouldn't throw them out now and do more harm on a principle, but in the long term these people are unsuitable to serve in these roles.
What if the only and best brain surgeon in the country was an anti-vaxxer and you needed surgery that only they could perform.
Then pay whatever fee is needed to import a brain surgeon from overseas.
Your whatabouterisms are absurd.
You're not so good at the whole theoretical principles thing. Let's try again. What if the marginal anti-vax care home worker was the one that would have prevented your granny from dying.
I've given you my answer: Sack her and hire a new care worker that's vaccinated.
Have you not been following the shortage of care workers/NHS staff thingy?
If a care worker is committing gross misconduct jeopardising the safety of those in their care, should they be kept on just because of a shortage of staff?
So by your reckoning a convicted sex offender that is triple vaccinated is more qualified to look after vulnerable people than an unvaccinated care worker with a 30-year unblemished track record?
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Nice trolling attempt but why do you think a convicted sex offender would pass the DBS check that care workers need to undergo before being recruited?
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Ask anyone with a vulnerable relative and they will tell you that the primary 'standard' for people working in the care sector is that they care.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
Personally I would regard it as criminal negligence. If you are willing to put someone's life at risk in that way then yes I would contend you certainly don't care enough.
I'll tell you what criminal negligence is. Criminal negligence is leaving care homes short of staff, or short of staff that actually give a damn about the vulnerable people being cared for. Indifference and neglect lead to suffering and death and quite quickly.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are also the wishes of the people being cared for.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
How does she feel about covid positive people no longer having to isolate?
Perhaps including staff and visitors, or their families.
Incidentally 35% figure is inaccurate, unless she herself is unvaccinated.
Yes, it is less - her point is that it is still seriously dangerous for her.
Comments
But that the danger is far from over and I think a VOC is incoming in the next few months.
Morality is a complex issue, surely and thankfully not subject to the one size fits all judgement of yourself and people like you.
Did your Trust suffer at all from the flu in previous years.
Do you not see the contradiction between draconian punishment for one and carte blanche for the other?
That sounds like a really smart strategy for Johnson. Keep brazening it out and refuse to release the report. People are sure to forget. I'm sure Starmer will stop mentioning it after a week or two. It'll all be fine.
You keep stretching for antivaxx lies but some are stupider than others and that one is a doozy.
Ans: no he doesn't.
Once it is clear they are using the same IP address appropriate action can be taken.
Starting with the last point first, we would have left without a Deal eventually - unless we carried on with an endless round of letters from Theresa May to the EU asking for more negotiations. The ramifications of leaving without a Deal - that's an argument for another day. Would they have strengthened the hand of those urging us to seek to rejoin? Don't know.
We would be preparing for a General Election in May which would be a re-run of 2017 (Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn). Do we think Theresa May handled the coronavirus well? The lockdowns were swift and strongly enforced and weren't to most people's tastes and the vaccination roll-out continues and it's taken a clear toll on the Prime Minister who looks exhausted.
A lot of Corbyn's thunder has been stolen by Sajid Javid and his furlough payments - in some respects, John McDonnell looks the lesser of the two high-tax high-spending social democratic chancellors.
The Conservatives look divided with the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove arguing for fewer restrictions and for tax cuts in advance of the election.
Perhaps set up a new website just for that. I'd subscribe.
Read the harrowing details of what happens to vulnerable people when they are shown indifference or neglect. Just read them and then be ashamed.
Are you really prepared to risk exposing the vulnerable to this in a post vaccination world? because care homes are short staffed or hire unsuitable people just because they have been vaccinated?
you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I have had all 3 and so has Mrs Foxy, so have no objection in principle. What I do object to is the inconsistency of insisting on this while permitting the covid positives to work normally.
I think NHS workers should be people who understand and believe in medicine. If they don't then that's a problem. Antivaxxers shouldn't be working in the NHS, any more than criminals should be working in the Police.
The rest of society should absolutely get back to normal, but the NHS staff are at the forefront of treating the vulnerable.
If an NHS frontline worker decided they were against wearing gloves, masks and all other PPE would that be acceptable if that is their belief? Or would they be told that for the safety of those they're treating they have to wear appropriate PPE or they'll be fired if they don't?
Also @BartholomewRoberts: let it rip, if the oldies die, they die.
.
In terms of optimal pay, GPs are too highly paid to efficiently allocate the resource.
Have standards for NHS but for everyone else get back to normal.
Perfectly consistent. The NHS already requires vaccines like Hep B. The NHS also requires PPE be worn etc. No need for national restrictions for any of that though, and anyone who doesn't want to maintain healthcare standards can work anywhere other than the healthcare sector.
Bad result for the Social Democrats in terms of seats though their vote share up slightly. Rio will I think go after this. Their traditional centre-right coalition partner, CDS-PP, got wiped out.
Also worth mentioning Liberal Initiative finished fourth with eight seats and 5% of the vote.
Your whataboutery is absurd.
Plus you are a huge hypocrite given your various let it rip posts (not all of which I disagree with).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm?s_cid=mm7104e2_w#F1_down
And get stuff like
* A COVID-19 case in a fully vaccinated person occurred when SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected in a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after completing the primary series of a COVID-19 vaccine with FDA approval or emergency use authorization. A COVID-19 case in an unvaccinated person occurred when the person did not receive any FDA–authorized COVID-19 vaccine doses before the specimen collection date. Excluded were partially vaccinated persons who had received at least one FDA–authorized or approved vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen with SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected. This analysis represents the combined impact of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) COVID-19 vaccines, which had different clinical efficacies against confirmed infection. A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died, and whose report local health authorities reviewed (e.g., using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources) to make that determination. Per national guidance, this should include persons whose death certificate lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as an underlying cause of death or as a significant condition contributing to death. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died.
Healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. Normality for anyone else.
If anyone doesn't want to follow healthcare standards, they don't have to work in the healthcare sector. They can work anywhere else that they'd prefer without those standards.
You spout a lot of sense sometimes and a lot of rubbish. In this case your logic is letting you down.
Either in general you support protecting the vulnerable whether they are in A&E or on the No.9 bus or you don't.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/dilemma-boris-conservatives/
At the least, it raises the debate to a level above HY’s myopic cheerleading for his Clownservative Party.
For you, its quite impossible for anybody at ll that is unvaccinated to care about a fully vaccinated vulnerable person. Im sorry but that is a patent absurdity, and its also a quite dangerous absurdity.
There would be a general election in May which with the Tories having not delivered Brexit and the UK having not left the EU and May's Deal still in place unchanged would likely have delivered yet another hung parliament. However this time, with the Tory vote split by the Brexit Party, who would now be on over 20%, may even see Corbyn Labour win most seats, with the LDs also significantly up.
McDonnell would of course have increased income tax and inheritance tax and imposed a wealth tax as per the Labour manifesto while spending even more than the Tories. Unions would be at their strongest position since the 1970s. Corbyn would now be cosying up to Putin over Ukraine, anti semitism would still be rife in Labour and we would not end Covid restrictions under a Labour government either. PM May or a PM Hunt would also likely have kept some restrictions unlike Boris, further entrenching shift of Tory voters to Farage's Party
Do bus drivers need the Hep B vaccine like NHS care staff do?
Why does it have to be extreme 100% or nothing at all? Keep the healthcare stuff in the healthcare sector, I'm perfectly fine with that. Normal standards for everything else including trains and buses.
If people are so vulnerable they need to live in a bubble they can choose not to board a train, they can't choose not to end up in a care home or A&E.
No reason Covid vaccine shouldn't be treated the same.
"Mr Hancock has since claimed that although no decision had been made yet, current requirements for doctors to have the Hepatitis B vaccine sets a “clear precedent” for potentially changing the law in this way.
This claim could do with some context. Although some frontline healthcare workers are required to have the Hepatitis B vaccine, this is not law but rather hospital trusts enacting workplace health and safety and occupational health policies."
At the moment, Trust have not had to consider the Health and Safety At Work Etc. Act 1974 position because it is government mandate. So we don't really have an answer.
.
You can have high standards for employees even if the general public still present a risk.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/382152/health_clearance_tuberculosis_hepatitis_hiv.pdf
para 31.
Either let it rip, or maintain some control measures but mixing it doesn't work.
Banning unvaxxed care home workers is presented as a consequence free policy in the same way lockdown once was.
In reality, both can have horrible side effects. Both can be killers in their own right.
https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1488124923415568385
"Having read Sue Gray's interim report into parties at No 10, it is clear that a massive breach of trust has occurred. The buck stops with me, and I am therefore announcing to the House my intention to resign as Prime Minister just as soon as a new Leader of the Conservative Party can be elected..."
.
If a nurse or doctor decided that PPE like masks, aprons and gloves etc don't work 100% and go against their beliefs could they continue in their job without wearing any PPE while treating patients?
Or would the NHS determine they're a risk to patients safety and sack them?
Nothing's ever 100% but its reasonable to have standards for people working in the healthcare sector including that they wear the appropriate PPE as required and have the appropriate vaccinations as required.
Anyone who isn't prepared to meet required healthcare standards should be free to work anywhere else.
But as you say it is inconsistent and illogical as he presents it.
If any care workers, who work with the most vulnerable to this virus, are so lacking in care and empathy for those entrusted to their care that they refused the vaccine then good riddance to them.
Healthcare workers for whom hepatitis B vaccination is contra-indicated,
who decline vaccination or who are non-responders to vaccine should be
restricted from performing EPPs unless shown to be non-infectious
(see paragraphs 37-40). Periodic re-testing may need to be considered.
In the real world, past your moral preening, that is what your policy is exposing people in care homes to. Your policy is a license for criminal negligence on an immense scale, with the details of the immense suffering and deaths only emerging years later, as with the Cawston case I posted earlier.
Like BR, you have no idea what you are talking about.
As I've said, I've given a consistent line to hold: healthcare standards for the healthcare sector. That's it.
I have no qualms with "letting it rip" in society in general and those who are vulnerable shielding etc if they choose to do so . . . but the healthcare workers are by definition working with the most vulnerable, at the time they are the most vulnerable.
Their job requires they look after the vulnerable who have no choice but to be in their care. Antivaxxers aren't doing so.
How are vaccines any different from that, medically speaking?
But I did discover that there's another Sue Gray - Air Marshall Sue Gray a RAF engineer who's the most senior female military officer in the British Armed Forces.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-engineer-becomes-first-ever-uk-female-military-three-star-commander
I guess they'll have to be ennobled at different times, or it'll look like a job lot.
Health and care workers are working with societies most vulnerable people who have no alternative but to being in the care of those who are being paid to look after them. That isn't the case for the rest of society.
Just as a sex offender could work in some jobs, but others need a DBS that would reject them, proper risk segmentation isn't the same for society as a whole and certain jobs. Healthcare standards should be highest in the healthcare sector.
At a minimum now, since the Government have sadly seemed to be running scared of this, I would like to see the unvaccinated in the health and care sector warned that they will be barred from promotion and that as new replacement staff become available they will be sacked.
From which we can deduce that if they won’t publish, the contents must be bad.
Also suggesting there would need to be a whipped vote on whether or not to publish, which could be interesting.
My Aunt is living in sheltered accommodation.
Before she retired, she worked in medical research.
She considers that anyone who won't vaccinate against a disease that has a 35% case/mortality rate in her age group can fuck right off. And keep fucking off until they are over the visible horizon.
If the Maternity unit is currently being staffed by people who don't believe in medicine then that is a problem in its own right.
If quacks who don't believe in medicine want to work in a private sector homeopathy clinic then that's fair enough, don't work for the NHS though.
- Antibody testing for proof of prior infection
- Regular PCR testing
Some combination of by the above would mean the patients are at no more risk than from a vaccinated staff member. And frankly, other factors such as whether a staff member has school age children will have a similar impact on infection risk.
The drive feels driven by the moral sense it is only right people in such a job should do all they can to protect others. I understand the sentiment, but the reality is a minority will never say yes and we are better off mitigating the risk in other ways than sacking a bunch of otherwise good workers.
Let me start by saying that the little I know about the Sue Gray investigating partygate suggests she is totally honest, consciencous, and impervious to corrupt outside pressures.
That said, which result would most likely get her a plum job like Governor of the BBC - a whitewash or an assassination?
Perhaps including staff and visitors, or their families.
Incidentally 35% figure is inaccurate, unless she herself is unvaccinated.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1051323/benefits-of-brexit.pdf